Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: July 13, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 3A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the January 28, 2009, Work Session, April 13, 2009, City Council Meeting, May 11, 2009, City Council Meeting, May 12, 2009, Work Session and Executive Session, May 20, 2009, Work Session, and May 27, 2009, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.January 28, 2009, Work Session B.April 13, 2009, City Council Meeting C.May 11, 2009, City Council Meeting D.May 12, 2009, Work Session and Executive Session E.May 20, 2009, Work Session F.May 27, 2009, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090713\S0907133A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon January 28, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown City Councilor Alan Zelenka called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:00 p.m. Mr. Zelenka commented that Mayor Kitty Piercy was lobbying on behalf of the Eugene City Council at the Mayors’ Day Conference in Salem, Oregon. A. WORK SESSION – Water Quality Protected Waterways Water Resource Manager Therese Walch briefly noted the discussions and staff actions previously presented to the council regarding the protection of certain waterways within the City of Eugene. Ms. Walch noted that she had returned to the council to present staff’s findings regarding the possible purchase of conservation easements as opposed to the application of regulatory protections. Ms. Walch noted that the cost estimates for the proposed conservation easements had been included in their agenda packets and would be discussed later in the meeting. Ms. Walch proceeded to give a detailed presentation regarding the background of the local waterways that would be affected by the proposed conservation easements as well as the activities which most directly affected the condition of local waterways. Ms. Walch briefly described elements of the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan and the Federal Clean Water Act and noted that they were the two primary policies currently governing the protection of local waterways. She proceeded to give a brief summary of the geographic nature of the Upper Willamette Watershed and its relationship to the City’s urban growth boundary. Ms. Walch referred to a map of several waterways within the watershed areas to illustrate those significant waterways that were being targeted for protection. Ms. Walch noted that the proposed regulatory protections regarding waterway protection would not necessarily improve local water quality but would prevent it from deteriorating any further. Ms. Walch directed the council to the agenda item summary and briefed them on the results of staff’s investigation into the costs and procedures associated with conservation easements. She reported that the estimated acquisition costs, which took into account both land acquisition and administrative fees, were between approximately $25 million and $63 million. Ms. Walch added that the staff’s estimate assumed that any conservation easements would be conducted within federal IRS guidelines. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Walch briefly described communications between staff and representatives of the McKenzie River Trust and The Nature Conservancy organizations with regard to conservation easements and directed the council to a summary of their discussions listed in the agenda item summary. She summarized that, due to the extensive and unusual nature of the amount of conservation easements that were being discussed, both agencies were recommending against the use of the conservation easement mechanism. Ms. Walch directed the council to the proposed amended ordinance materials that had been previously distributed regarding the protection of waterways. Ms. Walch and City Attorney Emily Jerome, responding to a request from Mr. Zelenka, briefly described the revisions to the ordinance for the benefit of the council. Mr. Clark declared that the company he owned occasionally did business with California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc. (COBI), a company that had provided testimony which had led to the revision of section 9.4780(h) of the ordinance in question. Mr. Clark added that he did not perceive any real conflict of interest and that he wanted to make the declaration in the interest of transparency. He further maintained that he did not feel it necessary to make any exceptions to the ordinance for COBI simply because they had had their attorney provide testimony during the public comment portion of an earlier council meeting. Mr. Clark expressed that he would prefer to direct the City Manager to take no further action on the matter primarily because the waterway protection measures as demonstrated by Ms. Walch prevented further deterioration but did not actually improve local water quality. He added that it did not seem reasonable to transfer the burden for protection of local waterways onto the 547 property owners who would be obligated under a conservation easement mechanism. Ms. Walch, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that under the Federal Clean Water Act, the City was legally required to address any violation of total maximum daily load (TMDL) standards. Ms. Taylor felt that while the City’s investigation into the use of conservation easements and amended regulatory protections constituted compliance within the eyes of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), such actions were simply not enough to adequately address waterway protection issues. Ms. Walch, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that it would be prohibitively difficult to employ conservation easements on a case-by-case basis and that to combine regulatory protections with individual easements among the 547 property owners would be an extremely expensive strategy. Ms. Taylor responded that the cost issue was irrelevant in light of the City’s expenditures toward the creation of a new City Hall facility. She stated that clean water was more important than a new City Hall facility. Ms. Walch, responding to a question from Mr. Brown, clarified the designations of the waterways being addressed by the ordinance amendments. Ms. Walch, responding to a question from Mr. Brown, briefly described the waterway protection measures that had been undertaken by the City of Springfield. Mr. Brown commented that it would be advisable for the City of Eugene to coordinate its water protection efforts with those of Springfield and Lane County. Ms. Walch noted that the proposed conservation easements would only be applicable within the limits of the City of Eugene. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pryor was concerned that the ordinance as presented did not strike an acceptable balance between a significant level of waterway protection and the rights of property owners. He noted that he was inclined to support the revised ordinance as the potential impact on property owners did not appear to outweigh the benefit to overall water quality for the area. Mr. Zelenka stated that the waterway protection measures under discussion were part of an ongoing effort to comply with the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and subsequent TMDL standards. He maintained that the proposed ordinance amendments did not appear to him to be overly burdensome to property owners. He further maintained that the use of conservation easements was an overly expensive strategy and an inappropriate use of regulatory practices. Ms. Walch, responding to a request from Mr. Poling, briefly recapped the previous council discussions regarding the possible regulatory approaches to waterway protection. Mr. Poling asked the City Manager where the funds to implement, monitor and enforce the ordinance provisions would come from. Mr. Ruiz responded that the funds might come in the form of a bond measure or the diversion of funds from another program. Ms. Jerome, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that property owners affected by the ordinance amendments would have the opportunity to appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Ms. Ortiz expressed that certain property owners affected by the ordinance would actually welcome the opportunity to help improve and conserve local waterways. Ms. Solomon indicated that she was not in favor of the amended ordinance and would like to have further public hearings conducted regarding the matter. Ms. Jerome, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, maintained that the changes to the ordinance were not substantial enough to warrant further public hearings regarding them and were in fact a direct response to the concerns raised at the previous public hearings. Mr. Clark opined that the discussions surrounding the ordinance were not about water quality but rather who would be paying for the regulatory approach dictated by the ordinance. Mr. Clark asked why the waterways under discussion were not covered in staff’s previous Goal 5 work. Mr. Clark commented that there were several things that the City could do to improve water quality along the Willamette that would not affect property owners. Mr. Ruiz noted that the cost to purchase the conservation easements as investigated by staff was not necessarily the financial burden of adjacent property owners. He suspected that the cost of regulatory protections would be significantly less than that. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to return the ordinance as proposed. Mr. Poling reiterated his concern that property owners rights might be infringed upon under the ordinance, but noted that he would be voting in support of Mr. Clark’s motion since property owners could still appeal the regulatory MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 3 Work Session provisions of the ordinance. Ms. Jerome commented that all of staff’s investigative findings with regard to land supply would be kept up to date and promptly communicated to the council. Mr. Clark responded that it would be important for staff to carefully and thoroughly determine the effects any potential litigation might to be initiated might have as a result of the ordinance. Ms. Jerome noted that she was surprised by how few community members had participated in the public hearings regarding the matter, but further noted that there was still a chance that the City might be sued as a result of the ordinance. Mr. Zelenka called for a vote on Mr. Clarke’s previously stated motion. The motion passed, 6:2 (Mr. Clark and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition). B. WORK SESSION – Economic Development Mr. Ruiz directed the council to the revised Economic Development Statement (EDS) included in the agenda materials and further noted that staff would be asking the council to adopt the EDS. Planning Development Division Manager Mike Sullivan gave a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Economic Development” and provided copies of same to the council. Mr. Sullivan briefly noted that the presentation included observations regarding the local economy as well as an examination of the City’s existing efforts to assist local businesses. Mr. Sullivan noted that small businesses comprised of between one and four employees made up approximately 60% of the total business population of Lane County. Mr. Sullivan commented that the economic figures listed in his presentation demonstrated a very close correlation between business size and average wages in that as Lane County businesses increased in size their average wages generally decreased. Mr. Sullivan reported that while the City of Eugene and Lane County had historically had a very strong manufacturing base, manufacturing as a percentage of the local economy had dropped from 22% in the 1970’s to 17% in 2000 and 11% currently. Additionally, Mr. Sullivan reported a surge in the service sector as a percentage of the local economy, up from 17% in the 1970’s to 28% in 2000 and 38% currently. He noted that this trend mirrored those of other similarly sized population centers across the country. Mr. Sullivan proceeded to demonstrate statistics regarding inflation adjusted annual average wages and median household incomes from his presentation. He noted that current median household incomes trailed state averages by 17% and national averages by 22%. Mr. Sullivan noted as part of his presentation those more successful business categories with higher wage levels that had been identified by the Lane Workforce Partnership (LWP). Mr. Sullivan briefly described the aforementioned City business assistance and economic development efforts for the benefit of the council. Mr. Ruiz noted that the information provided by Mr. Sullivan’s presentation would be helpful to them in determining a course of action on the proposed EDS as well as any potential community or legislative initiatives that would make use of federal or state stimulus funding assistance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Ruiz noted that the proposed EDS had two specific goals, to create and retain new jobs in the community and to increase the average median income. He further noted that the EDS generally addressed both immediate and near- term strategies to achieve those goals. Mr. Zelenka was concerned about the current 9.5% unemployment rate and noted that the immediate priority for the City should be helping existing local businesses. He noted his support of the EDS before the council and looked forward to the subsequent action plan. Mr. Clark thanked the Mayor and the City Manager for their recent efforts to assess and address the local economic situation and supported Mr. Zelenka’s call for a summit on economic development issues. He averred that a strong manufacturing sector was critical to the long term economic viability of the community and that manufacturing concerns should be a primary component of any local economic development strategies. He also looked forward to a discussion on how the City might motivate private businesses. Ms. Taylor expressed concern for local existing businesses in the struggling economy and further noted her support of any initiatives designed to increase average wages. She noted that while the City could not dictate wages for local businesses, the passage of a living wage ordinance for City and associated workers would set a good example for the local business community. Ms. Taylor noted her opposition to further support of the Metro Partnerships. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that adoption of the EDS would provide policy guidance to both him and staff with respect to how they implemented the City’s business development strategies. Ms. Solomon expressed that she would like to see the EDS have “more teeth” and a more detailed focus on addressing the business needs of the community. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon as to how the EDS would directly benefit local businesses, Mr. Ruiz commented that the EDS was designed to serve only as a policy statement to guide the City’s elected officials. Ms. Solomon was concerned that March 31 might not be a feasible timeline in which to create an action plan with input of community members and asked Mr. Ruiz for further clarification regarding staff’s strategy for creating an action plan out of the EDS. Mr. Ruiz noted that he planned to conduct round table discussions with local business leaders and entrepreneurs and felt that the action plan could be drafted within the time specified. Ms. Ortiz appreciated staff’s work on the EDS and further appreciated that the proposed statement had prompted a discussion on how to improve local economic conditions. She looked forward to supporting the statement and noted that its focus on the creation of a multitude of jobs in the area was admirable. Mr. Poling, referring to portions of Mr. Sullivan’s presentation that had demonstrated shifts between the manufacturing and service sectors, noted that the downward trend in manufacturing had also been affected by a lack of buildable lands and other impediments to manufacturing business expansions in the area. He noted that the City and its leaders could not afford to lose sight of new manufacturing business areas such as the manufacturing of solar panels and other energy conservation products. Mr. Brown asked if there had been movement in recent negotiations to have a solar panel manufacturing business take over the facility being vacated by Hynix. Mr. Ruiz noted that he was not currently aware of Hynix’s specific plans for their vacated facility and that the current status of their negotiations with regard to any future businesses in the space was indeterminate. Mr. Pryor understood that the EDS did not represent a specific work or action plan and that such a plan would be MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 5 Work Session forthcoming. He appreciated that while the statement was short on detail it sent a clear signal to businesses and the public that the economic viability of the area was a high City priority. Mr. Zelenka noted as an addendum to Mr. Sullivan’s economic presentation that government as a percentage of the local economy had decreased significantly over the past few decades. Mr. Zelenka appreciated the policy direction provided by the EDS as well as its direction to provide the council with a specific economic action plan by March 31. He suggested that an economic summit with the City’s local partners as well as forums with consulting business professionals might be beneficial to the creation of the action plan. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the adoption of the EDS did not constitute acceptance of the final report and recommendations of the Mayor’s Committee on Economic Development. He noted that the report was merely part of the background information on the EDS provided by staff to council. Ms. Taylor added that she did not support certain portions of the EDS supporting information listed in the agenda item summary. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Ruiz to confirm that adoption of the EDS did not constitute any specific direction to staff other than the discussion of economic issues and the generation of the action plan. Mr. Ruiz reiterated that the EDS was only designed to provide policy direction to staff regarding economic concerns. Mr. Clark reminded the council that Mr. Ruiz had a great deal of experience with job creation programs such as the Fresno Jobs Initiative in his former position. Mr. Clark noted that he would like to foster a discussion on any economic initiatives that would help private businesses act quickly to stimulate the local economy. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the proposed City of Eugene Mayor and City Council Economic Development Statement. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0 Ms. Zelenka adjourned the meeting at 1:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 6 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 13, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 7:36 p.m. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Pauline Hutson , 1025 Taylor Street, called the tree cutting that had been done for the EmX project along Pioneer Parkway a “massacre.” She asserted that 286 trees had been destroyed. She alleged that no one had known about it except the Lane Transit District (LTD) planners. She averred that LTD had responded that 286 trees sounded like more trees than it actually was. She disagreed; it was a lot of trees. She asserted that the public hearing on these trees was scheduled after the tree cutting had been scheduled and at an “inconvenient hour on a weekday.” She opined that one could not trust LTD staff to tell people as decision- makers what they needed to know. She declared that a person must ask the right questions and must anticipate “every possible impact.” She felt that LTD planners would tell members of the public that they were transportation professionals, had done “all that hard work and study” and that their judgment should be trusted. She averred that if one asked for proof or questioned their judgment the planners would “act hurt.” She said when that happened a person should “just remember the EmX tree massacre.” Joseph Collins , Ward 8, wished to protest the “inordinate amount of time allotted to the juggernaut” of Crest Drive/Friendly Street/Storey Boulevard residents. He understood that a number of the people who th resided on the streets had protested “for years” regarding the costs of upgrading their “19 century streets.” He had driven through their neighborhood and had been impressed by the “magnificent homes” he saw. He commented that it embarrassed him to hear so many of those homeowners express moral outrage that they had to pay to fix their streets like everyone else. He discussed some of the testimony he had heard. He noted that Councilor Taylor had indicated that she had complained “for years” about the street assessment methodology. He wondered if any councilors had complained when other areas of town had faced the same situation. He recalled that one person had opined that all property owners should pay for these streets since everyone used them. He underscored that he did not want to see anyone lose their home over this issue. th Eugene Drix , 307 ½ East 14 Avenue, remarked that street signs on High Street were often stolen. He commented that Eugene had too much of nothing, like many people these days. He noted that the ceiling of the Council Chamber was shaped like an ‘O’ like the first letter in Oregon. He said there was nothing all around us and there were two large holes in downtown to keep nothing in. He said Eugene also had lots of potholes, which were more holes to keep nothing in. He remarked that there used to be money coming in for trees but then “all the trees were cut down.” He averred that the solution to the future was “4:20.” He said MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 1 Regular Meeting if a person did not know what 4:20 meant, they should find out. He invited everyone to join him on April 20 at 4:20 p.m. at Kesey Plaza. He explained that at that time every year for five years running, he would sit and play his drum for four minutes and twenty seconds. Joan Kelly , 3265 Elmira Road, Ward 7, wished to speak to the issue of street assessments. She referred to the council’s March 9 work session, at which most councilors had acknowledged the need for further discussion concerning the City’s policy for road improvement assessment. She thought the burden of cost should be shared by the people who used the road. She said that there were “in excess of 2,500 trips per day” on Elmira Road. She averred that after the assessable property owners left and came back, there were approximately another 2,000 drivers on the street. She noted that there was a development that had no ingress or egress except via Elmira Road. She stated that it was classified as a collector and could qualify for federal dollars as such. She understood the need for construction to occur in the coming summer because of the bid that had been received. She hoped that if the council determined, through further discussion of the assessment methodology, that the burden on properties immediately adjacent to the roads that were being improved should be reduced, it would retroactively include the Elmira Road/Maple Street project. She said there were 120 assessable properties in the project and approximately 40 percent were rentals, making it difficult to contact them about remonstration. She stated that she had collected more than 72 signatures to remonstrate. She gave the following quote from C. Wright Mills, writer of The Power of the Elite: “As the means of information and power are centralized, some men [and women] come to occupy positions in American society from which they can look down upon, so to speak, and by their decisions mightily affect the everyday morals of ordinary men and women.” She averred that the council was in such a position with the vote on the Local Improvement District (LID) for the Elmira Road/Maple Street project. She had sent the councilors an email about it, adding that she never knew if her emails were actually read because she never received responses to them. She hoped the councilors would look at the email because it included information about interest rates, assessable properties, and the number of vehicles on the road during the day. Jim Wilcox , 205 West 31st Avenue, Ward 2, stated that he was the director of Bike Lane Coalition (BLC). He related that BLC supported House Bill (HB) 2690, the “Idaho stop” law. He averred that it had been successful in Idaho, a state with “nearly identical population density and transportation infrastructure.” He said the City was correct that cyclists sought the same rights and responsibilities as operators of vehicles, but because of the “car culture,” vehicles meant cars and this attracted many cyclists who “literally ride in the margins” to support the same rights movement. He disagreed with City staff’s position that HB 2690 would modify one of the main safety rules for bicyclists and would add to the rift between them and automobile drivers. He said different vehicles operated on the city streets with different traffic rules or use patterns based on “practical realities.” He suggested that this included a wide variety of vehicles on the streets and skateboards and pedestrians on the bike paths. He averred that there were sufficient differences between cyclists and vehicles to warrant the “reasonable exceptions” provided by HB 2690. He opined that bicyclists were better able to use sight and sound than a driver of a motor vehicle, when approaching an intersection, and operated at a slower speed. He declared that bicyclists offered a personal, plant-friendly alternative to the car, lowered pollution and added to public health, and kept dollars normally spent on imported fuel within the local economy. He did not believe we could advance the agenda to provide sustainable, healthy, and environmentally healthy transportation without questioning the “unbridled dominance” of the automobile. He urged the City to take a leadership role to advance the public benefits of bicycling by endorsing HB 2690. Mayor Piercy ascertained from Mark Schoening, City Engineer with the Public Works Department, that he had suggested to people testifying before the Hearings Official on the Maple Street/Elmira Road project that they could bring their concerns before the City Council. She noted that the written instructions indicated that an item that had gone before the Hearings Official could not ordinarily be brought up in the Public Forum, but made an exception based on the information Mr. Schoening had given the Elmira Road area MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 2 Regular Meeting residents. Sue Wolling , 825 Washington Street, #2, spoke in support of the “Idaho stop law.” She hoped that, in the future, the City would hear from citizens before taking a stand on such a law. She felt that a lot of bicyclists had “felt betrayed” by the City’s stand on the issue. She averred that she was not a “crook,” but she did roll through stop signs. She opined that a moving bicycle was easy to maneuver, but once it stopped it became much more difficult to initiate momentum and maneuver it. She could see whether a motorist was at the intersection and it did not make sense to her to stop if there was no oncoming traffic. She asserted that Idaho had not experienced an increase in collisions or injuries. She considered the notion that the law would antagonize motorists to be erroneous. She noted that Eugene was committed to building more “bike boulevards.” She thought this would not happen for a long time, given the current economy. She suggested that the lesser-traveled residential streets would be ideal for bicyclists, if the bicyclists did not have to stop for each and every stop sign. She asked the City to reconsider the position it had adopted on HB 2690. Shane Rhodes , 1920 Garfield Street, said he was a member of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and was also the Safe Routes to School Program Manager for the School District 4J. He encouraged the City Council to support HB 2690. He believed the bill would help encourage bicycling in Eugene. He averred that people would prefer to avoid large streets with heavy auto traffic when biking, but most quiet residential streets had stop signs at every intersection to calm automobile traffic. He felt that bicyclists trying to avoid the busy streets were “practically forced” to disregard the current law or to be “completely inefficient” in their transportation from “point ‘a’ to point ‘b’.” He averred that a better system was needed and HB 2690 would encourage this and would result in an increase in the use of bicycles. He declared that the law had been working in Idaho since 1982. He believed the law would still outlaw bad behavior and would legalize “already safe and practical behavior.” He noted that he taught bicycle safety education to both adults and children. He opined that the law would increase safety. He asserted that the BPAC had been formed to give advice to the City on issues affecting bicyclists and lamented that it had not been consulted prior to the City adopting its oppositional stance to HB 2690. He concluded by offering his endorsement for the proposed Washington/Jefferson Skate Park. Paul Adkins , 180 North Polk Street, Ward 7, stated that he was the father of four children and the president of the Greater Eugene Area Riders (GEAR). He stated that GEAR supported HB 2690 because it believed the law would increase ridership and decrease animosity between car drivers and bicycle riders. He averred that bicycles were unique due to size, agility, slower speeds, and vulnerability and should not have the same rules as motorized vehicles. He opined that it was safe to roll through a stop sign when no motorized vehicles were coming. He related that he taught parents and children that rode bicycles in Eugene. He echoed the sentiment that the process should have included better public involvement. He asked the council to ask staff to reconsider its opposition to HB 2690. He declared that the laws should help people choose human-powered transportation. Lee White , 2260 Lincoln Street, stated that he was a businessman and a member of the Eugene Rotary. He said, as a member of the Rotary’s Subcommittee on Community Service, he wanted to convey the Rotary’s endorsement of Resolution 4968, which would direct staff to apply for grant funding to build a covered skate park. He said the Rotary looked upon the project as a fulfillment of its “third avenue of service” to the City of Eugene and wanted to make the project, a covered “destination skate park,” a success. th Howard Bonnett , 1835 East 28 Avenue, Ward 3, wanted to address the “Idaho stop” bill and carbon dioxide emissions. He remarked that he would likely make his trip to the Council Chamber and back “on a serving of mashed potatoes.” He said people who choose to drive would leave approximately five to ten pounds of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He averred that transportation accounted for 50 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. He noted that the City had adopted a goal to reduce such emissions. He felt that HB 2690 would help increase the number of people who rode bicycles. He opined MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 3 Regular Meeting that bicyclists were a political minority who needed passionate advocacy and “steadfast pursuit” of the goal of promoting bicycling. He believed that the unanimous recommendation of staff to oppose the bill and the unanimous support of the bill by the bicycling community represented the disparity between the “culture” of the City staff and citizens. He asserted that this should be addressed by the City Manager. Bill Eddie , 830 Crest Drive, Ward 2, presented a petition of remonstrance signed by 67 people. He conveyed the belief of the signees that the assessments proposed for the Crest project were “excessive and unfair.” He said the petition was incomplete; he anticipated more residents would sign in the next several days. He stressed that area residents wanted the project to go forward, but they wanted the projects to be built in “an equitable and affordable fashion.” He understood that some councilors thought the process was fair and some thought it was unfair, but he had heard unanimity in the belief that it was unaffordable. He surmised that it could take a full citywide vote to change the assessment methodology, noting that the Crest area residents would support doing so. He stated the residents’ preference, however, to handle this “inhouse” by changing it to a citywide assessment for projects that benefited many people or that surpassed a certain amount of money. He averred that the assessment burden should be shared by more people. He was confident that the final petition of remonstrance, to be submitted to the City Engineer within a week, would contain enough signatures to move the council toward a two-thirds majority vote on the project. He asked the council to vote against moving forward with the Crest Drive/Friendly Street/Storey Boulevard road repair until a more equitable assessment policy was crafted. He felt this should also apply to the Elmira Road/Maple Street project. Eric Selker , 3795 University Street, noted that he also served on the board for GEAR. He estimated that approximately five percent of the people in Oregon use bicycles to commute. He felt that one reason people did not ride more was because it was regarded by people as dangerous, slow, and troublesome when it rained. He said people tried to ride in safe places, but it was slower to go through the residential neighbor- hoods. He suggested that allowing bicyclists to roll through stop signs when there was no traffic would encourage bicyclists to get off the main thoroughfares and would make it safer for both cars and bikes. He asked the councilors to reconsider and support HB 2690. Michal Young , 2310 McLean Boulevard, echoed support expressed for HB 2690. He averred that they were not talking about “annoying” bicyclist behavior; they were talking about allowing people to roll through a stop sign only if there was no other traffic. Erika Kronenberg , 3490 Elmira Road, said there was a large portion of the populace in the Elmira Road/Maple Street area that must utilize Elmira Road, designated a collector, to get to where they needed to go. She averred that there were at least 300 homes in the area. She thought a change in the assessment practice would defer the cost for all of the residents in that area. She pointed out that the neighborhood was largely working class people who were able to make their mortgage and not much more. She stressed that they were individuals who wanted to remain in their homes and who wanted to be treated fairly. She asked the City Council to consider a way to change the rules and to work with the City and the people who lived in the area to see if they could make a difference. Erika Winters , 1661 River Road, said she was a Tactics Team Rider for the ladies team, formerly of the Shelter Indoor Skate Park and she was an advocate for Skaters for Eugene Skate Park. She was honored to speak before her peers to endorse the proposed city center skate park. She averred that skaters had tried everything to survive the rain in Eugene, from “sketchy backyard ramps” to mops and leaf-blowers. She said they had considered indoor skate parks and rebuilding existing skate parks, but had found that the cost- gain model did not hold true with the exception of the city center skate park blueprint. She was glad the City was willing to consider their proposal. She discussed the “gains” she believed the $500,000 park would bring, including placing Eugene “on the map” as an “international skate community destination,” providing a secure, dry and lit skate park that would accommodate both the northwest weather and the large MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 4 Regular Meeting population of student and working skaters who were not able to skate during the day, and creating a skate community “hub” to bring them together “under one roof.” She predicted that the skate park would shift the “darker energy” that exists under the bridge out of that area and would welcome in “a shining productive light that would transform the space forever.” She considered renovation of existing skate facilities to be “penny wise and pound foolish,” as the locations were not as good and expansion possibilities were limited. She also thought such renovations would disturb neighboring schools. She concluded by declaring this was the chance “to do it right.” She said this would provide benefits to a diverse community and “humbly” requested the council’s support for the proposal. th John Perry , 435 West 9 Street, Junction City, offered his endorsement of the skate park. He said there were also horseshoe courts in the Jefferson/Washington Park. He was there to promote horseshoes “more than anything else.” He had seen “large people who would be less large” if they would get out and practice the sport of horseshoes. He considered it to be an excellent sport for physical health. He invited anyone who wanted to come down and learn about pitching horseshoes to come by the park on Wednesdays between 3:00 p.m. and as late as 6:00 p.m. He said the horseshoe crowd was friendly, there was no profanity, and everyone had a good time. He added his hope that the skate park, when constructed, would not infringe on the space allowed for horseshoe pitching. th Dominic Ruscio , 360 West 27 Avenue, spoke in support of the resolution that would authorize the application for grant money for a skate park. He believed that the City needed a skate park. He acknowl- edged that some might feel that the City had enough skate parks. He commented that it was even difficult for him to remember the skate parks because some of them were “easily forgettable.” He averred that the city had “one okay park, a couple of mediocre parks, and the rest [were] quite frankly a joke as far as skate parks go.” He said they were forced to share the parks with bikers. He believed that the park presented a “golden opportunity.” He related that the most recent copy of Thrasher Magazine featured a Eugene native, Silas Baxter-Neal, on its cover. He assured everyone that Mr. Baxter-Neal had not achieved that level of success by staying in Eugene and skating in its parks. He said Mr. Baxter-Neal had gone to Portland, Colorado, and California, where there were “great skate parks.” He noted that the magazines were saying that Oregon was becoming a “skate mecca,” because of Mark Scott who he considered to be the “Picasso or DaVinci” of skate park design. He hoped that if Eugene decided to do the skate park, Mr. Scott would be hired to design it. He predicted that people would come from all around the world to “ride Mark Scott’s latest masterpiece” if the City built the park using his design. He believed the park would benefit skate- boarders and all of the City of Eugene. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, addressed “segment B” of the future extension of the EmX bus line. He said there were currently three options, which he had outlined in a handout provided to the thth councilors, one that could go by Amazon Creek, one on West 11 Avenue, and one on West 7 Place. He predicted that putting the route next to the creek would cause “riots in this town.” He thought it would th present many land use issues and would be very expensive. He also believed that the potential West 11 Avenue route would involve a “massive taking of land.” He averred that the numbers would be “astronomi- th cal.” He opined that the 7 Place route would not involve as much taking of land and would provide the most direct route. th Ilona Kozeszar , 871 West 11 Avenue, Ward 1, stated that she was a member of Residents for Responsible Rapid Transit (3RT) and the West Eugene EmX Corridor Committee (WEEC). She said LTD had recently suggested an alternative plan intended to avoid pulling EmX buses in and out of the downtown station. She th asserted that LTD wanted to take the EmX down East 11 Avenue instead of turning right onto Mill Street th and left onto 10 Avenue. She predicted that, if that happened, the EmX station would be built across the street near the Olive Plaza Apartments. She believed that this would compromise existing businesses by eliminating or reducing access and parking. She said two of the committee members had asked why Oak thth and Pearl Streets were not being considered as a way to get back onto 6 and 7 Avenues. She asked the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 5 Regular Meeting councilors to urge city staff working with LTD to look at the possibility of utilizing Oak and Pearl Streets. Gloria Merriam , 240 Sunset Street, Ward 3, stated that she had lived in the community for 37 years and had taught at Roosevelt Middle School for many years. She quipped that she represented “grandmas for skate parks.” She noted that she had known Mr. Baxter-Neal when he was just learning to skate. She averred that the City had the opportunity to do something wonderful and provide a great venue for a skate park. She urged the City to support it. Laura Hackney , 3050 Kincaid Street, said she was the “proud parent” of a 16-year-old skater. She related that he skated whenever he could, weather permitting. She stated that water was not a skateboard’s friend, noting that she had replaced several, and a “bored kid” was not a happy one. As a community member, she urged everyone to get involved and donate what they could. She averred that if the skate park was built, the skaters would come to it. Gary W. Cook , 4284 Bent Tree Lane, Ward 2, said he had ridden bicycles in Eugene “for years” and put more miles on his bike than on his car. He tried to be conscientious and to obey laws. He preferred to ride on streets where he did not impede automobile traffic. He was concerned with the process in regard to the “Idaho stop” law. He felt that people who rode bicycles should have been heard, given that the issue affected bicyclists. He reiterated that people on bicycles would not run stop signs in the path of a car and that bicyclists lacked decent thoroughfares to travel on. He averred that if the City Council did not want to consider the law, the council should support better transportation facilities for bicycles; bicycles should be considered a form of transportation. th Samantha Chirillo , 157 East 27 Avenue, Apt. 3, Ward 1, supported the legalization of the “Idaho stop.” She also supported a strong Police Auditor position. She said this should mean that the auditor’s office be fully staffed “at all times as the voters expect.” She mainly wanted to testify about alleged lack of notice given by Union Pacific Railroad of its intention to use herbicides. The Citizens for Public Accountability (CPA) Environmental and Social Justice Committee considered this to fall under its purview. She related that, as a representative of CPA, she had talked with someone who worked in the City Manager’s Office (CMO) at the Neighborhood Summit. She had explained why notification of spraying was very important, because it was considered a health hazard to people who “live, work, and play near the railroad tracks.” She had seen the notification email that had gone to the Neighborhood Leadership Council (NLC) and the notice that had gone to the CMO. She did not consider the notice adequate as she alleged that it had been sent less than a week prior to the spraying. She had talked with people and felt that not enough people knew about it. She asserted that a similar incident had occurred in Multnomah County in 2008 and some children had been sent to the hospital. She asked why staff had allegedly not been informed of the “Good Neighbor Agree- ment” and what had happened to the list of interested citizens. She wanted to ensure that neighborhood residents were well-advised of future pesticide applications so that all residents, and children and pregnant women in particular, could avoid the area if necessary. She suggested that there should be follow-up with Congressman Peter DeFazio given that he was the chair of the Transportation Committee. She said there was also no notice on the City’s website and related that “a person” who called the CMO for advice was not told to avoid the area. Matthew Parrott , 3012 Friendly Street, wished to address the Crest Drive project street assessments. He explained that he was a self-employed house painter who, along with his wife, had purchased a duplex in 2005. He related that they had worked hard to upgrade and maintain the duplex and that the rents they received did not cover the payment. He stated that the assessment for the project would amount to approximately $25,000 and was “more of a burden than [they] could shoulder.” He said given the current real estate market, it was unlikely they could sell the property to pay off the loan. He felt they were left with no viable options. He opined that it was “grossly unfair” that cost of repairing the road, after “years of neglect,” should fall on a “small group of property owners” in that area. He urged the council to work MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting toward a more equitable solution. Pam Hirsh , 3210 Storey Boulevard, said she had lived on Storey Boulevard for seven years. She felt the street was very busy and asked the council to consider who uses the street and who should pay for the road project. She had talked to many people and it seemed that everyone thought there should be a more fair way of distributing the costs. She agreed that the project should go forward. Bill Hirsh , 3210 Storey Boulevard, Ward 2, stated that he had lived in the area for 25 years. He could recall very little street improvement over that course of time. He agreed that there was a lot of traffic on Storey Boulevard and wanted the assessments to be spread out over more of the users. Jacque Seim , 3391 Elmira Road, said she was a third generation Eugene resident. She related that her home had been built in 1900. She noted that Elmira Road had been a county road until 1964. It was her understanding that the City annexed the road because it was projected to become a main collector street due to increases in population that were predicted for the area and that part of this included an agreement to improve it. She did not think any improvements had occurred, with the exception of filling potholes. She stated that all of the area residents were working class people who worked hard to make ends meet. She related that she had purchased her house 16 years earlier for $90,000. She said the assessment for the property was $27,000. She noted that this was nearly one-third of the original cost of the house, adding her feeling that it was too much. She asked the council to please look at the policy regarding street assessments. She felt that traffic in Eugene was much heavier than it was when the policy had been crafted 50 years ago. Colette Ramirez , 884 Taylor Street, stated that she worked for the City as a Skate Program Coordinator for the Outdoor Program, though she was speaking as an individual. She asked for the council’s continued support for building a Washington/Jefferson skate park. She related that according to organizations such as the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) and the National Recreation Parks Association, research showed that positive recreation opportunities, such as a regional sized skate park, would enhance the livability of a community. She believed that the proposed park would provide positive recreation opportunities all year long, enhance the safety of the area, enhance the aesthetic value of the area, and would provide a place for year-round fitness. She averred that the future of the city lay in creating the most livable community citizens could envision. Price Armstrong , 1745 Moon Lee Lane, University of Oregon student and financial officer for the University student group Live Move, a group that promotes livability and sustainability in communities, asked the council to support the “Idaho stop” law. He related that when a bicyclist was “cranking along” in a lower gear, it made it difficult to come to a full stop and regain full speed. He was also challenged by having his feet clipped in to the pedals. He said a friend had received a traffic ticket for rolling through a stop sign on a bicycle and had been financially challenged to pay it as he was a student. Marlene Varady , 420 Crest Drive, Ward 2, provided remonstrance petitions. She also submitted some supplemental information she had provided in bullet-point form. She was glad that the Elmira Road area was also being assessed because she felt this brought to light that the assessment methodology affected residents of the whole city. She believed it was the right time, given the current economy, to change the code. She said they could not get signatures to remonstrate from the Wayne Morse Family Farm or from the school. She felt that Senator Morse would have tried to consider another way to make the street repairs happen. Majeska Seese-Green , PO Box 1214, Ward 7, reported that the Whiteaker Community Council had held its annual meeting and elections. She related that 15 people had been elected to the board. She felt that the turnout had been good. She added that the new chair was Kari Johnson, and noted that she would no longer serve on the board. She supported the proposed skate park. She looked forward to having it near her home. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting She also urged the council to support the “Idaho stop” bill. Additionally, she had been pleased that the council had reinstated the acting Police Auditor, and that this had been done in an open session. Regarding the railroad pesticide spraying, she wanted to register her agreement with everything Ms. Chirillo stated. She wanted the City to ensure that the railroad had done everything it could to get notification in place prior to future spraying. She said the position of the neighborhood council was that the City should urge Union Pacific to utilize non-toxic modes of weed control. She stated that she would send the council an email regarding the rest of her testimony. Michael Quillin , 2735 Kismet Way, Ward 8, wished to express his support for the office of the Police Auditor. He was pleased that the council restored the acting Police Auditor to her position. He opined that it seemed the only City office that appeared to receive adequate oversight was the auditor’s office and he found this concerning. He believed that the council was quick to fault Ms. Reynolds for the breach of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) she had signed with the Police Chief and that each delay of the institution of police oversight was a violation of the City charter. He expressed amazement that the council had “been quick” to place Ms. Reynolds on administrative leave when, he asserted, police officers accused of using “unlawful deadly force remain on active duty.” He added his support for construction of a world- class skate park in Eugene. Dawn Marlan , 920 Crest Drive, remarked that despite the fact that she lived on Crest Drive, she was “not rich.” She related that she and her husband lived on one academic salary with no way of increasing their income. She said when they bought their house they were informed that the most the street assessment could cost them would be $10,000 and that this would be unlikely. She stated that at presently the assessment was $20,000. She and her husband would not have bought their house had they known in advance how much they would be assessed, should the street project happen. She said they had other debts and two children who were their priorities over “shouldering a disproportionate amount of the burden for creating a perfect street in the middle of a recession.” Sue Kelly , 3260 Storey Boulevard, said she had lived in Eugene for 30 years and had rented all of her life. She stated that she was a letter carrier who had delivered mail on routes “all over Eugene and Springfield.” She loved Eugene; for her it was an organism that was growing. She thought it had outgrown its current form, including the way the street repairs were assessed. She did not think Eugene was a conglomerate of different neighborhoods; it was a city in which everyone should pay for its streets. She felt that the current street assessment methodology was divisive and painful. She also wanted to mention the skate park in order to add her voice to those in support. She averred that it would create an opportunity akin to a “jewel in our crown.” She opined that Eugene was the greatest city for the arts and outdoors and skating was an art that was outdoors. She also agreed with the bicyclists in support of the “Idaho stop” law. Moshe Immerman , 2595½ McLean Boulevard, hoped everyone was taking time to enjoy the wildflowers of spring. He thanked the council for reinstating the acting Police Auditor. He had engaged in lengthy meetings with her and felt that she was “among the most competent, pristine, high-integrity public officials” he had encountered in Oregon. He asserted that he was an “incident commander in the national park service of inter-agency federal law enforcement teams… protecting sacred sites of Native Americans, keeping paramilitary groups out of national parks.” He averred that her standard of integrity met his. He empha- sized his support for Ms. Reynolds and that he believed that she had a lapse and this was because she was human. He supported strong police oversight and asked that the council consider Ms. Reynolds as a leading candidate for the office of Police Auditor. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. Councilor Clark thanked everyone for attending the forum. He had been impressed by the number of people who spoke on a variety of issues. With regard to the road improvement projects, he wanted to reiterate his MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 8 Regular Meeting belief that it would be “just wrong” for anyone to lose their house in order to improve the road in front of it. He said the council and the residents being called upon to pay the assessments needed a better answer than the current one for assessments. He also wished to note that the people in his ward, Ward 5, had a particular park they really wanted to see developed in the north side of town. While he was sensitive to the need to get that park done, he understood the need for the skate park and that it had been in planning longer. He added that his son greatly admired Tony Hawk and loved skateboarding and when he said he understood how important skateboarding was to some people, he really did understand it. Councilor Zelenka thanked everyone who spoke in the public forum. He remarked that he had initially been reluctant to support HB 2690, the “Idaho stop” law, because of a concern for safety. He averred that stop signs were situated in places that were dangerous. He was also skeptical that the law would increase ridership. Nonetheless, after hearing testimony, he felt more inclined to support the law. Regarding the skate park, he said he appreciated the need for a covered park in this area. He believed a world-class sheltered skate park would be an asset to the community. Councilor Ortiz related that Mayor’s committee on the neighborhood issues related to the railroad had been meeting monthly and had been interacting with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA). She thought the spraying by the railroad company should be “bumped up” in priority. She said the railroad did not provide specific information about when it planned to conduct its spraying. She also wished to stress that the council did not oversee the Police Department; the Police Auditor was based on the quality-assurance model. She stated that the reason the auditor received the attention of the council was because the auditor was the employee of the council. She said the council’s other employees were the City Manager and the Municipal Court judge. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone who spoke. She reiterated that the street assessment policy had bothered her for years and that her feeling was that it was “absolutely wrong.” She said if the council changed the policy, it would not take effect for six months. She also did not see how more people would bicycle if they did not have to stop at stop signs. She did not believe Eugene’s support of the law would make a difference at the Legislature. She added that when she first heard about the proposed legislation, she had been chiefly concerned that children would run the stop signs without paying adequate attention to traffic. Councilor Pryor expressed appreciation for everyone who came out for the meeting, adding that if they were going to spend this much time hearing testimony, it was good to hear quality testimony. He believed the fact that the stop law had been in effect for a number of years in another state without major problems was a powerful argument. He was interested in revisiting the issue. He also thought the skate park was a “fabulous idea.” He recalled having been involved in the development of a skate park in Springfield some years back and having invited Tony Hawk to town. He noted that they had been able to garner a $25,000 contribution from Mr. Hawk for the park and suggested that Mr. Hawk might be willing to contribute again. He said he would be happy to be involved in a skate park in Eugene. He considered the assessment conversation to be difficult. He wished to clarify that the homeowners were not bearing the majority of the burden for paying the assessments for the road in front of their houses. He pointed out that almost two- thirds of the money to be spent on Elmira Road was coming from the City of Eugene, which meant that the people of Eugene were paying that amount. He acknowledged that the other one-third was not an easy burden to bear. He agreed that a system that had worked well 50 years earlier might not be a great system in the present. He thought they should reexamine how the street assessments were allocated in the present. He was not certain how that discussion would affect the road projects planned for the Crest Drive and Elmira Road areas. He averred that it was a difficult burden for residents along the street to bear. He echoed Councilor Clark, declaring that he would not want to see someone lose their home over the assessments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 9 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy commended the testimony, stating that everyone had spoken very eloquently. She thanked them for the “high quality conversation” they had provided. She called for a seven-minute break at 9:13 p.m. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 27, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting - February 9, 2009, City Council Meeting - February 17, 2009, City Council Meeting - February 23, 2009, Work Session - February 25, 2009, Executive Session - March 2, 2009, Executive Session - March 2, 2009, Regular Session - March 3, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Neighborhood Matching Grants D. Resolution 4969 Extending the Time for Conveyance of Property Concerning the Multiple- th Unit Property Tax Exemption for Property Located at 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street, Eugene, Oregon and amending Resolution No. 4966 E. Adoption of Resolution 4968 Supporting Application for State of Oregon parks and Recreation Department Local Government Grant Matching Funds for Parks F. Initiation of Infill Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting Code Amendments G. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of February 18, 2009 H. Interim Appointment to the Human Rights Commission Mayor Piercy stated that the majority of the Consent Calendar had been passed during the preceding Work Session. She noted that Items C, E, and F had been deferred. Councilor Zelenka thought the projects that had been submitted for Neighborhood Matching Grants were worthy but a couple of them seemed like they were school projects, as opposed to neighborhood projects. He wondered what the criteria was, noting that all of the projects had been proposed by neighborhood groups. Cindy Clarke, with the Neighborhood Services Division of the Planning and Development Department (PDD), stated that the funds to be allocated for projects on school grounds was consistent with Resolution No. 4632, established in the year 2000. She stated that the resolution specifically identified school site councils as eligible applicants. She related that the grants had funded ten school projects since then. Councilor Clark noted that one project had been the restoration of Spring Creek in Santa Clara, a project initiated by the Santa Clara Community Organization and on e that had been featured in the Register Guard. He related that the money was going predominantly toward the trees and native plants for the children and the community members to plant, as well as the educational process around it. He considered it to be a fantastic effort. City Attorney Glenn Klein pointed out that given that the rest of the Consent Calendar had already been passed, the individual items pulled from it would require separate motions. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to fund the FY09 Neighborhood Matching Grant proposals as recommended by the department ad- visory committee. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 10 Regular Meeting Regarding Consent Calendar Item E, Councilor Solomon said she had been convinced to support the project, but would like more information. She understood that the total cost of the project was $892,000. Landscape Architect for the Parks and Open Space Division, Emily Proudfoot, responded that the cost had come down to $820,000 since the original estimate. Councilor Solomon ascertained from Ms. Proudfoot that the division was applying for $210,000 which the City was intended to match with a sum of money. Ms. Proudfoot clarified that the City was expected to match the funding with $292,000. Councilor Solomon understood that the skate group had committed to raising $250,000, but there was still a gap. Ms. Proudfoot stated that since the memorandum had been written, the Eugene Rotary Club had committed to bringing in another $50,000. Councilor Solomon asked who would own the park upon completion. Ms. Proudfoot replied that the City of Eugene would be the owner. Councilor Solomon surmised that the City would then be responsible for maintenance and upkeep. Ms. Proudfoot responded that there was a lot of good feeling in the community about this project. She anticipated that the City would have help in that regard. Councilor Poling asked if the project would displace the horseshoe pits. Ms. Proudfoot replied that at this point, the horseshoe pits would remain where they were. Councilor Poling recalled skateboarding as a youth, before skateboards had become modernized. He said he had originally voted against the project because he felt they lacked information. He stated that the City’s match would come from parks Systems Development Charges (SDCs) specifically collected for parks development; the money could not be used to fill potholes or hire employees. He now felt that for the investment the City would make, it was getting more than its “money’s worth.” He thought the proposed park project would enhance things for the skaters and would bring in some additional revenues to the community. He supported the application for the grant. Councilor Ortiz observed that the grant was due by April 3. Ms. Proudfoot confirmed this. She said staff had applied for the grant during the council break. She had talked with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) and staff there indicated that they were willing to accept the grant application with an unsigned resolution. Councilor Ortiz asked what the City’s chances were for receiving the money. Ms. Proudfoot replied that it was difficult to predict. She thought it was the kind of project the department was interested in, noting that three or four skate parks had been funded in the previous year. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for their work on this project. She shared the website for the project: www.skateeugene.org. She stressed that she wanted to support youth and if there was this much energy around the project, it should be supported. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve Resolution 4960, a resolution supporting application for State of Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Lo- cal Government Grant matching funds for parks. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanim- ously, 8:0. Regarding Consent Calendar Item F, Councilor Zelenka asked staff to explain why the code amendments were being initiated at this point. Senior Planner Terri Harding replied that the request to have the council initiate the land use code amendments was a function required by the Eugene City Code. Councilor Zelenka asked what would happen next. Ms. Harding responded that the community members on the task teams would take their recommendations before the Planning Commission at the end of April and, MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 11 Regular Meeting depending on the commission’s recommendation, the amendments would be brought before the council for hearings. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to initiate infill compatibility stan- dards and opportunity siting code amendments. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanim- ously, 8:0. 3. ACTION: Ratification of Unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions and Discussion and Action on Non-unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions on Legislative Policy from March 11 and April 1, 2009 Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson began the review of the non-unanimous Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) actions on legislative policy. House Bill 2831 – Provides that temporary employees be included in the definition of ‘appropriate bargaining unit’ for purposes of collective bargaining between public employers and public employees. Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would also prohibit public employers from hiring permanent replacements for public employees engaged in lawful strikes. She said staff recommended adoption of a Priority 3 Oppose position; a motion to change the position to Priority 3 Support had been made but died for lack of a second. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose posi- tion on House Bill 2831. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Zelenka, and Brown voting in opposition. House Bill 2690 – Referred to as the “Idaho bike stop” bill, the bill would permit a person on a bicycle to roll through a stop sign at an intersection if there was no cross traffic. Ms. Wilson reported that staff had recommended a Priority 3 Oppose position and the CCIGR had not pulled the bill for discussion. She said because the position had been unanimously supported, the City had adopted a Priority 3 Oppose position at the Legislature. She related that the Mayor, however, had asked that the bill be revisited in the CCIGR on April 1. She explained that a motion had been made to change the Priority 3 Oppose position to a neutral position, but the motion failed, 2:1. She noted that there had been a hearing on the bill in the Transportation Committee and she believed the bill was not going to move. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Neutral position on House Bill 2690. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to substitute a motion to adopt a Support position. Councilor Clark asked Ms. Wilson to explain why the recommendation had been to oppose the bill. He had heard compelling testimony to support the bill. Ms. Wilson responded that the bill had been assigned to five different staff members in five different areas of the City and all of them had recommended a Priority 3 Oppose position. She said one reason for opposition that had stood out was that the terminology and the way the bill was written made it hard to implement. She noted that the testimony during the hearing had echoed this. She explained that the bill did not define what was slowing to a safe speed and how one would know what speed that would be, especially law enforcement. She stated that the committee members had also raised the issue of the “messaging” from the bicycle community. She said staff had opposed the bill during the previous legislative session when it had been introduced for the same reasons. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 12 Regular Meeting Councilor Poling indicated that he would not support anything but an oppose position. He felt that a change in the law would “open up the road.” His concerns were that it could lead to allowing other modes of transportation to forego stopping at stop signs and that it did not restrict the rolling stops to certain areas. He averred that stop signs and stoplights had been placed for safety reasons. He believed that the transportation system needed to be consistently safe for all people. Councilor Ortiz respected staff recommendations “99.9 percent of the time.” She said occasionally the councilors took a stance that was “against the norm.” She was willing to support a neutral position. She said, given that Ms. Wilson had indicated that the bill was not moving, she did not think the council should send her back with instructions to work on the bill. Councilor Pryor concurred with Councilor Ortiz. He had been originally inclined to oppose the bill. He did not think he could support the bill at this point, without further information, but he was willing to support adoption of a neutral position. Roll call vote; the motion to substitute a Priority 3 Support position failed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Zelenka, and Brown voting in support. Roll call vote; the main motion to adopt a Neutral position passed, 7:1; Councilor Poling voting in opposition. House Bill 2842 – Would repeal Ballot Measure 57 and all related provisions. Ms. Wilson noted that Ballot Measure (BM) 57 had been passed in 2008. She said staff had recommended adoption of a Priority 2 Oppose position, but Councilor Taylor had moved to change this to a Priority 2 Support and received no second. Councilor Taylor explained that her feeling was that the prisons were already overloaded and BM 57 should be repealed. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose posi- tion on House Bill 2842. Councilor Clark asked for a brief synopsis of BM 57. Ms. Wilson replied that HB 2842 would roll back the sentencing enhancements that were passed by the voters. She said BM 57 had been the “kinder and gentler” version of the measure submitted by Kevin Mannix and was less costly. She stated that the reason staff recommended adoption of an Oppose position was because the measure covered property crimes, the “number one problem” in Eugene. She added that because the bill would repeal a ballot measure, a two- third majority was required to overturn it. Mayor Piercy surmised that the bill was not moving in the Legislature. She commented, for the record, that she did not like either one of the ballot measures that had been submitted to the popular vote. She thought they did “a big disservice to the State.” While she wanted people to be held accountable, she felt the measures were a drain on resources. Councilor Zelenka concurred. He thought it was internally inconsistent to say on one hand that we should not support a bill because of a lack of jail space and, on the other hand, to oppose the repeal of a bill that would jail more offenders. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Brown, Zelenka, and Taylor voting in op- position. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 13 Regular Meeting House Bill 2875 – Would allow a taxpayer to elect to defer payment of increased property taxes attributable to annexation of property by a city. Ms. Wilson said the bill would allow for deferral of taxes for a ten-year period after the effective date of annexation. She stated that staff had recommended adoption of a Priority 2 Oppose position, which was in line with adopted legislative policies. She related that Councilor Taylor had made a motion to change the position to Support, but had not received a second. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a position of Priority 2 Oppose on House Bill 2875. Councilor Clark asked who sponsored the bill. Ms. Wilson replied that Senator Vicki Walker and Representatives Chris Edwards and Mitch Greenlick had sponsored it. Mayor Piercy did not believe it was necessary to take a position on the bill. Councilor Taylor thought they should support it because she believed “it was only fair.” She averred that a person who was annexed should not have to be subjected to an increase in property taxes. Councilor Ortiz pointed out that the City of Eugene did not annex people against their will. She preferred adoption of a neutral stance on the bill. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to substitute a motion to adopt a Priority 2 Support position on the bill. Councilor Clark believed that the way the ‘190 agreements’ were set up with the County, someone who wanted to build substantially, was forced to annex to the City. He said it was a difficult choice. He commented that he would prefer that the County resume responsibility for permitting for county residents. He thought the bill would provide a reasonable way to help such construction be more affordable. Councilor Poling could not support the substitute motion. He read staff comments provided by Senior Management Analyst for the Finance Division Larry Hill which indicated that the bill would allow any owner of recently annexed property to defer City property taxes for up to ten years, and the state would have a lien against the property. He related that after ten years or when the property was sold, the deferred taxes plus interest would be payable to the Oregon Department of Revenue. He stated that no additional money would be appropriated to cover the bill’s financial impact to the County and City. He considered the bill to be bad legislation. Roll call vote; the substitute motion failed, 6:2; councilors Clark and Taylor voting in favor. Roll call vote; the original motion to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position passed, 6:2; counci- lors Taylor and Clark voting in opposition. House Bill 2961 – Would allow a municipality to impose local requirements for construction of new structures that would be more stringent than state building code. Ms. Wilson stated that staff had recommended adoption of a neutral stance on the bill. She related that Councilor Poling wished to change this to a Priority 3 Oppose because he felt the statewide building code should be consistent and this motion had resulted in a 2:1 vote with Councilor Taylor dissenting. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 14 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose posi- tion on House Bill 2961. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Or- tiz voting in opposition. House Bill 2979 – Would require that places of public accommodation allow customer access to employee toilet facilities if a customer had certain medical conditions and provided for a punishment of a maximum fine of $90 for violations. Ms. Wilson stated that staff had recommended a Priority 3 Oppose position. She related that Councilor Ortiz had moved to monitor the bill and had not received a second. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Wilson to review the conditions included in the bill. Ms. Wilson explained that the list included use of any ostomy device, Krohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and any inflammatory bowel disease. She said one issue raised by staff was that the bill provided no way for an employee of a public facility to know whether or not a person had one of those medical conditions. Mayor Piercy commented that in the case of someone with an extreme medical condition it did seem unreasonable to deny access to a restroom. She suggested that they choose to monitor the bill or to ask for an amendment requiring that a person carry an affidavit regarding their condition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose posi- tion to House Bill 2979. Councilor Ortiz asked where the bill was going. Ms. Wilson replied that it was not moving. Councilor Poling said the reason he opposed the bill was that it would allow customers access to employee toilet facilities. He pointed out that public restrooms were required to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He felt that employees should not be exposed to unnecessary risks and, as such, he could not support the bill. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson said the bill did not explain how someone would determine if a person should have the right to access an employee bathroom. She remarked that it was a difficult bill to administer. Councilor Zelenka thought the bill came from a good intent but was badly executed. Councilor Pryor commented that anyone could come into a public place and claim they had irritable bowel syndrome or ulcerative colitis and it would be impossible to prove. He did not think the state would begin to issue cards proving that a person had one of these disorders. He could not support the bill. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Ortiz voting in opposition. House Bill 3031 – Would extend local government approval of residential development permits for two years. Ms. Wilson related that staff had recommended adoption of a neutral stance because the City Council had not taken a position on it. She said Councilor Poling had made a motion to adopt a Priority 3 Support position and had not received a second. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a neutral position on House Bill 3031. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 15 Regular Meeting Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to amend the motion to change the position to Priority 3 Support. Councilor Poling said he supported the bill because it would extend the expiration date for residential developments for two years beyond the present expiration. He thought that given the current economic times, it would be prudent to be more lenient on projects that were not completed on time. He did not think this would create a financial impact on the City. He noted that other jurisdictions were doing this. Councilor Solomon concurred. Councilor Clark averred that it made sense to keep the plumbers, roofers, and framers working. He said if a project had already received its permit, it would be good to give the builders some extra time to get the financing. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson stated that while the bill did not include a specific sunset, it would only apply to those permits that would expire on or after the effective date of the act and before July 1, 2011. Roll call vote; the amendment passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Brown voting in opposi- tion. House Bill 3056 – Would require a 50 percent increment to be added to the total assessed value of property within urban renewal area whenever the increment equaled the total assessed value. Ms. Wilson stated that staff had recommended a Priority 2 Oppose position because this was in line with adopted legislative policies. She said Councilor Taylor had moved to change this to a Priority 2 Support and had not received a second. She noted that Councilor Taylor indicated that she wanted to support the bill because she believed it would provide more money for the General Fund. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose posi- tion on House Bill 3056. Councilor Brown asked what financial effect the bill would have on the downtown area. Ms. Wilson replied that staff had reported that the bill would have an immediate impact on the downtown district and the impact on the riverfront district was unknown. She explained that it would require 50 percent of the increment to be added to the assessed value of a property. Councilor Brown observed that the purpose of the urban renewal program was to increase values of properties that were undervalued. He found it interesting that there were bills “popping up” that seemed to want to reexamine urban renewal and he thought it was a good idea to do so. Councilor Clark said he would support the motion, but he agreed that they should have a discussion on urban renewal. He noted his opposition to urban renewal. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Brown and Taylor voting in opposition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the Intergovernmental Committee’s unanimous actions on bills and approval of staff recommendations in the March 11, and April 1, 2009, Intergovernmental Relations Bill Reports for bills not pulled for discussion at those Intergovernmental Relations Committee meetings. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 16 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to extend the meeting by 15 mi- nutes. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1, Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. 4. ACTION: Approval of Minutes, Findings and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adoption of Resolution 4970 Forming a Local Improvement District for Paving, Constructing Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Street Lights, Stormwater Drainage, Water Quality Facilities, on Elmira Road from Bertelsen Road to Maple Street and Maple Street from Elmira Road to Roosevelt Boulevard (Job # 4275 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the Hearings Official minutes, findings, and recommendations dated April 9, 2009 and to adopt Resolution 4970 forming a Local Improvement District for paving, constructing curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, stormwater drainage, water quality facilities, on Elmira Road from Bertelsen Road to Maple Street and Maple Street from Elmira Road to Roosevelt Boulevard (Job #4275). Mr. Schoening acknowledged that there was strong support for the project, but the issue was really about the cost of the assessments. He noted that when assessments had been discussed at the work session held earlier in the year, assessments for the Elmira Road project were estimated to be $180 per front foot and $200 per front foot for the Crest project. He reported that the bids had come in at 28 percent less and assessments for the Elmira/Maple project had fallen to $125 per front foot. He explained that this meant it would cost $6,250 for a 50-foot frontage and the average cost for a residence was $9,800. He reiterated that the City was paying $2.1 million, two-thirds of the cost, from SDCs. Mr. Schoening shared the councilors concerns that people should not lose a house over the street improve- ments. He stated that the council instituted a low-income assistance program several years earlier which would provide a subsidy that ranged from one-third to five-sixths of the cost for single-family homes that were owner-occupied. He said 34 property owners had qualified for this assistance. He noted that there would be a second opportunity to apply. Mayor Piercy observed that the bids would not likely be lower than they currently were. She asked if the City would consider any other extenuating circumstances aside from income level. Mr. Schoening replied that there was nothing specific in the code, aside from income level. Councilor Ortiz complimented Mr. Schoening and his staff for doing “an amazing job” of working with the community. She also did not want anyone to lose their home. She understood that it could be difficult to keep one’s “head above water.” She said it was time for the projects to move ahead. She wanted to support the motion. She recalled the River Avenue process, in which the River Avenue property owners had protested the planned level of development and had been sent “to the drawing board.” She said they had returned with less of a project, but by the time they had completed the work, the cost had escalated and the project cost more money. She stressed that the street improvements were not going to get cheaper with time. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Mr. Klein stated that because of the charter, it was not possible to change the code retroactively. He said it would be possible to add more money to the City’s share of the road project. He noted that the proposed motion would form the Local Improvement District (LID) and would not impose the assessment. He explained that the assessment ordinance would not likely be adopted before January, 2010, and if the council could come up with more money, it could be applied to the project and reduce the assessments to the residents. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 17 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark averred that it would never be less expensive to do the project. He wanted to state “loudly and clearly” that no one would be losing a house to fix the road. He said he would be more comfortable if the council could send the project back to a work session to discuss some of the principles the decision would be based upon. He did not want to endanger the deadline either and asked if there was room for the council to work on the assessments further. Mr. Schoening responded that the options, according to City code, were to move forward, to substantially modify it, to delay approval for 15 days, or to abandon the improvements. Councilor Solomon requested that a work session be scheduled as soon as possible to “take another run” at the assessment policy. She wanted to do this before the assessments for the project were to be finalized. She was particularly concerned about the people who could only access their cul-de-sacs via Elmira Road, but were not being asked to participate in the paving project. Mr. Schoening noted that the mobile home park was being assessed for the project. Councilor Pryor said he could support the LID because he could make the “leap of faith” that the City could find a way to have an impact on the level of assessments. He agreed that the council should have a conversation regarding the assessments, going forward. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Mr. Klein clarified that the council had the authority to make the changes in the code regarding assessments. Councilor Clark understood that the formula for assessments was in the code regarding which costs were assessable to the adjacent properties. He thought one way to change it would be to change what costs could be assessed, rather than the whole policy. Mayor Piercy ascertained from Mr. Schoening that the project was past the point of being potentially modified in terms of sidewalks and other amenities. In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Schoening stated that the City provided financing at 8 percent, which was an interim rate until the City sold bonds. He said when the bonds were sold, the rate would be based on the bond rates and would include administrative costs. Councilor Solomon remarked that a loan could be obtained from a bank for less. Mr. Schoening responded that there was no requirement for property owners to finance through the City. Councilor Solomon asked if the project would qualify for stimulus money. Mr. Schoening replied that it met the criteria, but all of the transportation dollars that had come to Oregon were already allocated. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Clark voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 10:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 18 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 11, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 7:36 p.m. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Carol Berg-Caldwell , 2510 Augusta Street, invited the councilors to attend a town hall on tasers, to be held on May 21, in the Training Room of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). She said panelists would share their views and there would be questions and answers with the audience. She noted that the panel included James Salisbury, father of Ryan Salisbury – a young man who was shot and killed by police officers responding to a call for help from the family. She greatly respected Mr. Salisbury for his willingness to share his personal tragedy with the community and to provide input. She hoped the Police Chief or another Eugene Police Department (EPD) designee would attend. She noted that Police Commissioner Juan Carlos Valle had indicated that he would attend. She provided copies of the flier for the event to the council. Maritza Herrera , 2583 Park View, stated that she was a resident of North Eugene. She requested that there be a park for the area. She said when she took her dog for a walk she had to drive to Alton Baker Park or to Armitage Park, which cost $3. She related that her fiancée loved to play soccer and had to drive south to do so. She understood that land had been purchased for parks in South Eugene, but parks were really needed in North Eugene. Margaret Thumel , P.O. Box 1966, had been recently annoyed by some of the things that the City of Eugene was doing and proposing. She objected to spending $6.2 million on a bicycle flyover from Willagillespie Road over an abandoned quarry and freeway. She opined that the idea of charging a fee to garbage collectors was “hare-brained.” She called this a “phantom tax” for the City to repair potholes. She had been galled by the request for matching funds from the City of Eugene, available for the project from Systems Development Charges (SDCs), for a skate park. She averred that she did not know where the councilors lived or “which reality zone” they were in, but she considered these types of decisions to be irresponsible. She asserted that the number one responsibility of the council was public safety. She alleged that the City had the lowest per capita amount of police officers in the nation; it was not uncommon for the City of Eugene to have only five officers on duty at one time. She observed that Lane County Jail was letting felons out guided by a matrix based on the dangers the felons posed to the community, rather than a time matrix. She asked the councilors when they had last done a ride-along with a sergeant of EPD during a regular shift. She asked the council to forget the skate park and the “other tidbits” and prioritize public safety first. Erik Humphrey , 777 High Street, Suite 120, Vice President of the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA), indicated that he was providing testimony specifically under the guise of Eugene Code (EC) 2.400(2) to file an MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 1 Regular Meeting official complaint against a City Council employee, interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds. He stated that in accordance with EC 2.400(1), he filed an official complaint against Ms. Reynolds on April 10, 2009, in his capacity as an Executive Board member of the EPEA on behalf of the EPEA President. He had been notified by City Attorney Glenn Klein that the initial determination of the complaint was that it fell outside the scope of the council’s formal complaint process. He averred that Mr. Klein’s conclusion was that the complaint involved an allegation of misconduct but was not one that involved a violation of federal, state, or local laws. Because of this, he said, the council would not take further action under EC 2.400 through 2.412. He had been perplexed by this finding and the council’s lack of action. He asserted that the complaint dealt with retaliatory measures against the EPEA president due to his union affiliation. He asked how they could know for a fact that no violation of the laws had occurred without a formal and professional investigation into the evidence. He stated that the process had apparently come to an end and he was now before the council in accordance with EC 2.400(2) which stated that any complaints that do not allege a violation of law shall not be considered by the council as part of this process but may be presented by a complainant to the City Council at its Public Forum. He asked the council to please consider his presentation as a formal complaint of an allegation of misconduct against interim Police Auditor, Dawn Reynolds, under EC 2.400(2). He provided the specific complaint in writing. He thanked the council for its time in dealing with the matter. Michael Quillin , 2735 Kismet Way, Ward 8, expressed dismay that the Police Chief had decided to adopt a taser policy. He believed it was premature to make this decision without having consulted with the Police Commission and the public at large. He opined that this was akin to the former chief’s determination that no misconduct had occurred when a protester had been tased while allegedly resisting arrest in 2008. He reiterated the invitation to the town hall meeting on tasers. Randy Prince , P.O. Box 927, requested that the City conduct a thorough review of zoning in light of new hazard information that may have been received over the preceding ten years. He said the relevance of this had to do with how they might acquire the Beverly property and what it might cost. He felt that it would also call to question how legally defensible the siting of critical facilities might be if they were in flood zone areas that were not developable before the dams had been constructed; dams, he asserted ,were now recognized to be seismically “under-engineered.” He believed the Goal 7 process was required for the City. He averred that “after some landslides killed people in Oregon,” the legislature revised Goal 7 so that when new hazard information came in, the zoning was to be “looked at.” He said Part B of the law included a description of how the state was supposed to collect the information and then order counties to do things. He alleged that the state had never done this and the Legislature had held hearings to find out why this was not happening. He believed that if information was known, the City would be required to follow the goals in Part A. He asserted that the Beverly property was in a landslide zone and should be rezoned. Zachary Vishanoff , Ward 3, said a public hearing on the “big O” on Autzen Stadium was being held at 1:00 p.m. on May 13. He related that someone had challenged it, adding “more power to them.” He opined that the ‘O’ was too big and was not legal. He appreciated that the hearing had been added to the Public Meetings Calendar. He asked if Councilor Clark would be available on July 10 or July 17 to participate in a City Club discussion on the possible use of the EWEB headquarters building as a City Hall. He indicated that he would welcome participation from the other councilors or the Mayor as well. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for sharing their thoughts. She indicated that she had gone on a police ride-along and had also participated in the Citizens Police Academy. She encouraged all of her colleagues to do the same, adding that she wished the councilors could learn about all City services in the same way. Councilor Clark agreed that North Eugene needed more parks. He said he also had participated in the citizen’s academy during his tenure on the Police Commission. He had gone on a ride-along but believed he should go on another. Regarding Mr. Humphrey’s official complaint, he asked the City Manager to suggest the next responsible steps having heard the complaint based on the ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 2 Regular Meeting Mr. Klein requested the opportunity to get back to the council in writing with some options. He interpreted the code as having provided a formal process for filing certain kinds of complaints and then, as a “catch all,” if something did not fall within that parameter it was not covered by the process. Councilor Clark said he had been “intrigued” by how every complaint against an officer was required to be investigated, but other types of complaints were not often investigated. He asked legal counsel to comment on this duality. Councilor Clark indicated that he was willing to speak at the City Club. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - March 9, 2009, City Council Meeting - March 11, 2009, Work Session B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4973 Authorizing an Electric Utility System Line of Credit Agreement in the Aggregate Principal Amount of Not to Exceed Forty-Six Million Three Hundred and Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($46,355,000) for the Purpose of Financing and Refinancing the Harvest Wind Project and Providing for Related Matters D. Adoption of Resolution 4974 Authorizing the Electric Utility System Refunding revenue Bonds in the Aggregate Principal Amount of No to Exceed Forty-Six Million Three Hundred and Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($46,355,000) for the Purpose of Financing and Refinancing the Harvest Wind Project and Providing for Related Matters E. Approval of Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program F. Adoption of Resolution 4975 Annexing Land to the City of Eugene (City Landbank Site/County Farm Road Annexation / A 09-1) G. Initiation of Metro Plan Amendment to Return River Ridge/Jeffries Property to Low-Density Residential H. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes of April 1, 2009, and April 8, 2009 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilor Zelenka pulled Item E. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item E was ap- proved unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka indicated that he had pulled Item E, approval of a Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing Program because he felt it deserved to be talked about. Stephanie Jennings, Grants Manager for the Community Development Division, explained that the City had been notified that it would be receiving federal funds for homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing. She said the program would help people facing financial challenges remain in their homes as well as helping the City address growing homelessness within the community. She related that there had been a 25 percent increase in the one-night homelessness count and there had been a significant increase in unemployment. She believed that the funding would make a difference in the number of households who were experiencing critical needs at this time. She stated that the City would be partnering with Lane County, noting that the County had also solicited $700,000 in homelessness and rapid re-housing funds. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka also wished to comment on Items C and D. He observed that EWEB was purchasing wind power, making it one of the greenest utilities in the country. Mayor Piercy noted that Item E would not only address the crisis at hand, but was in line with doing due diligence for following council goals. Roll call vote; Item E, approval of the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program, was passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. ACTION: Ratification of Unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions and Discussion and Action on Non- unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions on Legislative Policy from April 29 and May 6, 2009 Councilor Zelenka explained that Senate Bill (SB) 719 was a bill that would provide no-interest loans from a revolving loan fund it would establish to help finance eligible infrastructure projects in urban growth boundary areas. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt the staff recommended position of Priority 2 Support for Senate Bill 719. Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, noted that two other bills had not received unanimous support by the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (CCIGR) but neither of them had made it past the dead bill deadline. She stated that the bill in question would establish the revolving fund, funding it from the issuance of lottery bonds from the State. She reported that the bill was moving and was currently in the Joint Ways and Means Committee. She said Councilor Taylor moved to change the position to Priority 2 Oppose and the motion had failed. Mayor Piercy recalled that the bill had to do with expansions that were already underway in the Portland area. Ms. Wilson confirmed this, noting that the money would also be available to other cities, should they choose to expand their Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs). Councilor Brown agreed with Councilor Taylor. He felt the bill was premature, given that there had been no discussion of an expansion of the UGB in Eugene, the population study had yet to be completed, and the buildable land survey was also not done. He also pointed out that the Infill Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting work was not yet completed. He likened it to sitting at a table for a feast that had yet to occur. Councilor Zelenka observed that the money would come from the Economic Development Department in the form of no-interest loans. He noted that the State was running a deficit budget and questioned whether the money would be there. He also asked what sort of eligible infrastructure projects the loans would pay for. Ms. Wilson replied that the fund would be set up and administered by the Economic Development Department, but the money for the fund would come from the sale of state lottery bonds. She said lottery bonds funded a wide variety of projects including transportation, infrastructure, and water projects. She stated that SB 719 was in committee; the economic forecast would be received on May 15 after which the Joint Ways and Means Committee would release its budget. She explained that this would be the benchmark they would use to determine whether any of the bonds before it would be funded. She said, at present, when a local government expanded its UGB, it would not have the funds to invest in beginning infrastructure because the fees that pay for those projects had not yet been paid. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson stated that other communities that had such projects planned included Gresham, several cities in Washington County, Wilsonville, and a couple of other central Oregon cities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Poling wished to point out that the bill did not speak to the expansion of a UGB, it only provided cities an additional tool in the event that an expansion of the UGB was necessary. He averred that the no-interest loan could be a viable tool for any community. Councilor Clark understood that it would be accurate to say that some cities were under a requirement, due to growth, to expand a UGB. He said when a city had to expand the UGB and had to provide the infrastructure to do so, the bill would provide a mechanism to pay for it out of a loan from state funds rather than having to cut local programs in order to afford the requirement. Ms. Wilson responded that this was “one way to look at it.” Councilor Taylor asked what the interest rate on the loans would be. Ms. Wilson replied that the interest rate was zero. Councilor Taylor asked where the money would go if it did not go into the loans. Ms. Wilson responded that the bonds had not been sold yet; the bill would authorize the state to sell the bonds. She noted that, theoretically, the state had a finite amount of bonds that it could sell. Councilor Taylor commented that this was a far lower interest rate than what people paying street assessments were charged by the City. Councilor Zelenka was worried about unintended consequences. Ms. Wilson replied that it would provide communi- ties who wished to expand their UGBs, or who were forced to do so, additional resources. She thought it could provide an incentive for those communities that were thinking about expanding their UGBs, but did not have the financial resources to develop the infrastructure at the beginning of the expansion. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Brown, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in opposition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the Intergovernmental Commit- tee’s unanimous actions on bills and approval of staff recommendations in the April 29, and May 6, 2009, Intergovernmental Relations Bill Reports for bills not pulled for discussion at those Intergo- vernmental Relations Committee meetings. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: Appointment to Civilian Review Board Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Tim Laue to Position 4 on the Civilian Review Board, the unexpired term of John Norton Cabell, for a term ending on October 31, 2009. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to substitute Marisa Mendoza for Position 4. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Brown and Taylor voting in favor. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. 5. ACTION: Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission FY10 Regional Wastewater Pro- gram Budget and Capital Improvements Program Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the FY10 Metropolitan Wastewa- ter Management Commission Budget. Councilor Brown asked how the departure of Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. had impacted the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MSMC). Lori Davis, Business Manager for the Wastewater Division, explained that Hynix had been the largest industrial user and its departure had caused a large drop in revenue. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka asked Ms. Davis to explain the rationale behind the 18 percent increase. Ms. Davis replied that it was primarily to cover the 20-year facility plan, funded through the bond. She pointed out that the facility plan had been put into place to meet regulatory requirements. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Davis confirmed that a small portion of the increase was likely caused by the loss of Hynix. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 6. ACTION: Resolution 4976 Authorizing a Contingent Loan Agreement to Secure a Borrowing by Lane Council of Governments Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt Resolution 4976 authorizing a Contingent Loan Agreement to secure a borrowing by Lane Council of Governments. Councilor Zelenka asked for an explanation of what the agreement was for and what the City’s liability would be. Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager for the Finance Division, stated that the resolution would authorize a contingent loan agreement with the City and the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). She said LCOG was borrowing money for improvements planned for the Park Place Building, recently purchased by LCOG. She explained that LCOG had been caught “between a rock and a hard place,” as the project’s costs had increased and when they went to borrow money for it the bottom had fallen out of the credit market. She related that the resolution would help them to obtain the loan by saying the City would guarantee payments on the loan, in the event that was needed. She added that LCOG would create a reserve equal to one year of payments when the loan closed. She said as long as LCOG made the payments on time, the City would do nothing; if a payment was missed, the money would be drawn from the reserve and the City would replenish the reserve, to be paid back with interest by LCOG. She confirmed that in the worst case scenario, if LCOG could not make the payments, the City would be “on the hook” for the loan. She stated that the loan was a 10-year loan at approximately $70,000 per year and the City would take a position on some real estate that LCOG owned as security. Councilor Zelenka ascertained that the total amount of the loan was $550,000. Councilor Brown asked what was being used as collateral. Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that equity in the Park Place Building and the Schaefer’s Building was being offered as collateral. She noted that the City would be in second position on both buildings; the equity being offered in collateral was in excess of the loan amount. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Brown, Ms. Cutsogeorge estimated the amount the City paid to LCOG in dues to be between $60,000 and $80,000. Councilor Brown asked what the money was for and the “worst possible thing” that would happen if the City did not help LCOG attain financing. Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that the money was for refurbishing the space for LCOG’s tenants. She said LCOG would have to pay for the work itself if it could not get a loan, and this would create an issue with its auditor, Jones & Roth. Councilor Taylor opined that the City would be taking a chance with taxpayers’ money. Councilor Pryor stated that he sat on the LCOG Board and had looked into the resolution in detail. He noted that LCOG had done this before; the County had acted as guarantor when LCOG purchased the Schaefer’s Building. He underscored his belief that the City would be guaranteeing a loan that LCOG could repay. He averred that the collateralization of both buildings made the City’s exposure minimal, as LCOG’s assets were better than what would MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting be needed to cover the loan. He underscored that the bank was requiring a guarantor because of the current economic climate. He added that the building was an asset to the downtown. Councilor Clark stressed that he meant no disrespect to LCOG. He had received a number of comments from constituents. He understood that LCOG had bought the building for $6 million, but could have bought it for $3 million a couple of years earlier and now wanted to make another $2 million in improvements to it. He was challenged to guarantee the loan when it seemed “extravagant.” Councilor Zelenka asked Ms. Cutsogeorge to explain how spending the money would cause problems with LCOG’s auditor. Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that LCOG would receive an audit finding on their annual audit report. Bob Swank, Associate Director of LCOG, explained that the audit finding that LCOG could potentially face would be that its reserves and its general fund had been reduced to possibly a negative or very low number. He underscored that the loan guarantee was not for a loan to pay for extravagance and that it had come from the economic climate; costs had gone up and LCOG had not been able to get a loan on its own. He stated that the reason LCOG needed to retain its general fund reserves was that it used those funds to make matching funds for “all kinds of grants, many of which would potentially relate to the City of Eugene.” Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Poling, Ortiz, Pryor, and Zelenka voting in favor and councilors Brown, Taylor, Clark, and Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in fa- vor of the resolution and it passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 12, 2009 11 a.m. PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Brown. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION Mayor Piercy reminded the council of the vote the council took the previous evening in regard to a financial commitment requested by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), and said she had become concerned about the result. She had wanted to talk to LCOG in more detail about the proposed financial commitment and wanted to give the council the same opportunity. She asked the council to move to reconsider its decision and then to table the motion immediately. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to reconsider the council’s adoption of Resolu- tion 4976 concerning the loan guarantee for LCOG. The motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Clark and Mr. Poling voting no, and Ms. Solomon and Mr. Brown not yet having arrived. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to table the motion. The motion passed un- animously, 6:0. Mayor Piercy called the council into executive session. B. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Interviews of Candidates for Police Auditor Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 192.660(2)(a), the Eugene City Council met in executive session. The meeting adjourned at 4 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 15, 2009 Page 1 Executive Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 20, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. Ms. Piercy called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:00 p.m. Ms. Piercy noted that although more information had been expected to be presented regarding the hiring of the new police auditor, council and staff were still performing due diligence and had no new information to present. A. WORK SESSION – Reconsideration of Resolution 4976 Authorizing a Contingent Loan Agreement to Secure a Borrowing by Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to remove Resolution 4976 from the table for the purposes of further discussion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. City Attorney Glen Klein noted that the motion had been automatically removed from the table once the work session had been convened. Mayor Piercy recalled that the motion regarding the resolution had been tabled at the previous work session meeting for the purposes of providing LCOG the opportunity to discuss the matter with those City Councilors who were initially in opposition to the resolution. Mayor Piercy requested that City Manager Jon Ruiz and his staff re-state their positions of support for Resolution 4976 for the benefit of the public and to explain in more detail why it was a risk for the City that was worth taking. Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge noted that Eugene was a member agency of LCOG, which had received similar assistance from other members before. She believed that the risk to the City was reasonable given the proposed financing mechanism, and suggested it was unlikely that a government would default on the debt. Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a request from Mayor Piercy for an explanation of the repayment contingencies under the resolution, reported that LCOG would place one year’s worth of loan payments into a reserve fund that could be drawn on in the event that LCOG missed a payment. She further noted that, when depleted, the reserve fund would be replenished by the City as a loan that would need to be repaid by LCOG with interest. Ms. Cutsogeorge also noted that, in a worst-case scenario, the City would also maintain a lien position on the LCOG building and its corresponding assets. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 1 Work Session City Manager Ruiz observed that the City of Eugene had a longstanding and generally positive relationship with LCOG. His recommendation was based on his belief that City staff understood the risk involved and the risk was minimal for the reasons stated by Ms. Cutsogeorge. He thought the loan was a means of maintaining an important collaborative partnership at low risk. Mr. Clark indicated that while he had initially been opposed to Resolution 4976, recent conversations with LCOG Executive Director George Kloeppel had convinced him that the loan money would be spent effectively and productively. He said that the risk involved in the contingent loan agreement appeared small and given that the organization was located in downtown Eugene, it made some sense for the City of Eugene to take the risk. Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, stated that the City's annual dues for its LCOG membership were approximately $70,000 plus a number of corresponding operational costs for phones, IT support and planning services. Ms. Taylor felt that the City should encourage LCOG to keep its operations in the downtown area. The motion to adopt Resolution 4976 passed, 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Brown voting in opposition. Ms. Piercy hoped that the LCOG Board of Directors would provide some form of acknowledgement of its partnerships and support from the City of Eugene. B. WORK SESSION – Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC) Next Steps Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary provided a brief overview of the history, origins and primary goals of the PAORC and briefed the council on the most recent developments from the March 9, and April 20, 2009, PAORC meetings. Ms. Medary noted that the six outstanding issues from the most recent PAORC meetings concerned processes for appealing the Police Chief's adjudication authority of the Police Auditor to recommend discipline, subpoena power for the Civilian Review Board (CRB) and the Police Auditor, the Police auditor's role in the training of police employees, the CRB's role in the evaluation and oversight of the auditor, and the auditor's position in Eugene Police Department (EPD) hiring practices including that of the Chief of Police. Ms. Medary noted that the PAORC had recommended that the council discuss the supervision of the Police Auditor and consider using the council officers as opposed to the full council. She noted that those topics were scheduled to be discussed at the next City Council work session meeting. Ms. Medary restated the council options from the agenda item summary materials for the benefit of the council and further noted that the City Manager's recommendation to revise the ordinance language focused upon proposed revisions to those elements of the charter that addressed concurrency and complaints against the Chief of Police. Ms. Ortiz advocated for a broader discussion regarding both roles of the Police Auditor in the oversight process and the budgetary issues surrounding the Police Auditor's office. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pryor felt that while it might duplicate the efforts of the PAORC, it might be necessary for the council to go over some of the outstanding issues again to make sure that all council members had been fully informed on the issues before voting on any action items. Ms. Piercy commented that she, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Zelenka had participated in the PAORC process and had supported the revisions to the ordinance. Mr. Poling supported the City Manager's recommendations but felt it might be advisable to hold off on voting on the council option until they were able to get the input of the new Police Auditor. Mr. Zelenka was disappointed that the police union representatives had ultimately chosen not to participate in the PAORC process and noted he supported the recommendations of the PAORC. He hoped that the outstanding issues surrounding complaints against the chief, concurrency, and budgetary issues would be resolved in short order. He supported the idea that any administrative investigations with respect to the police oversight be carried out concurrently with criminal investigations. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Poling's statement that it might be beneficial to postpone action on the ordinance revisions until the new Police Auditor had a chance to provide a different perspective on the matter. He further noted that the chief's minority report regarding the PAORC's work might need to be considered more closely. Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Pryor's earlier comments and hoped that the remaining City Council members would have a chance to review each of the items that had been addressed during the PAORC process. Ms. Medary, in response to a request from Ms. Piercy, briefly discussed the nature of the proposed ordinance revisions surrounding the Police Auditor's budget process. She noted that the proposed revision to Section 2.450(5) of the Eugene Code had been unanimously agreed on by the PAORC. Ms. Ortiz noted that recent requests from interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds for increases to the auditor's budget indicated that it might be necessary to have a much more detailed discussion on the ordinance revisions that pertained to the auditor's budget. Ms. Medary noted that the ordinance revisions to Section 2.450(6) of the Code regarding the Police Auditor's level of access to the EPD's internal affairs resources had also been unanimously agreed upon by the PAORC. Ms. Ortiz noted that the level of access indicated by the revision would not preclude considerate use of the internal affairs resources and hoped that the auditor would continue to set up appointments to use those resources and materials. Ms. Medary briefly described the nature of the expanded definitions of the office of the Police Auditor as described in Section 2.452 as well as the revised language requiring the auditor to review a random selection of service complaints. Ms. Solomon, commenting with respect to the proposed revisions to Section 2.456(c), asked how a copy of a liability claim for damages against the EPD would automatically be considered a complaint subject to the Police Auditor process. Ms. Medary replied that such risk management processes were already in place and that the revision was meant to codify those processes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Medary briefly described the remaining proposed revisions to the ordinance for the benefit of the council. Mr. Klein noted earlier comments from Ms. Ortiz regarding the budget increases requested by interim auditor Dawn Reynolds and noted that any such requests would not be subject to any of the proposed ordinance revisions being currently discussed because they would not take effect until the following year. Mr. Klein, responding to a request from Ms. Ortiz, briefly explained the language of the proposed amendment to Section 2.450(5) and noted that the proposed revision had no real effect on the processes of the City Council or Budget Committee. Mr. Clark worried that the proposed revisions to Section 2.450(5) might allow the City Manager to substitute his or her own judgment for that of the Police Auditor with respect to the budgets provided for the Police Auditor's office. Mr. Klein, responding to a request from Ms. Piercy, confirmed that language similar to the proposed ordinance revisions regarding the Police Auditor's budget was already part of the Eugene City Code. Mr. Zelenka suggested that it might be advisable to have the Police Auditor's budget be a line item in the City's total budget because it would allow the public to clearly identify how the Police Auditor's office was funded separate from the EPD. Ms. Solomon commented that it might be difficult to determine what an appropriate level of funding would be for the auditor to perform their duties as described in the Code and hoped that reasonable limits might be applied with respect to the Police Auditor's budget. Ms. Piercy offered that the budgets for the Police Auditor's office were generally the direct result of the auditor's own practices and experience. City Manager Jon Ruiz noted that recent increases to the Police Auditor's budget had been provided for additional investigation resources as well as additional compensation for the deputy auditor position. Mr. Zelenka maintained that a Police Auditor budget that was sufficient for external investigations as stated in the proposed ordinance revisions would be affected by the type and number of investigations performed by the auditor's office. Mr. Clark, speaking with regard to the proposed revisions to Section 2.454(5), asked how the PAORC had discussed the nature of complaints against the Chief of Police and how such complaints might work with potential conflicts of interest between administrative supervisors from different areas of the City. Mr. Zelenka noted that the PAORC had been fully cognizant of the dual role that was served by the Chief of Police and how his or her duties as a public safety officer might conflict with his or her duties as the administrative head of a City division. He noted that allegations against City administrators were handled differently than allegations and complaints against sworn police officers. Mr. Pryor noted that the PAORC had reviewed several of the inconsistencies related to allegations against the Chief of Police and found that the Police Auditor and the City Manager would ultimately be the principal entities responsible for investigating and reviewing allegations against the Chief of Police. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Zelenka noted that the PAORC had recommended that any complaints against the chief be handled by the Police Auditor as a service complaint rather than immediately referring allegations against the chief to the City Manager as described in the proposed ordinance revisions. Mr. Klein added that the proposed ordinance revisions did include language as part of 2.454(5)(b) that preserved the Police Auditor's role in investigations of allegations against the chief. Mr. Zelenka noted that the PAORC discussions had concluded that the Police Chief was still primarily a sworn public safety officer but that the adjudication process for complaints against the chief should be different than those for regular police officers. Ms. Solomon asked Mr. Ruiz for clarification regarding the nature of his recommendations regarding allegations against the Police Chief. Mr. Ruiz responded that the proposed revisions would allow the Police Auditor to have a chance to review the draft adjudications regarding complaints against the chief before the City Manager's adjudications were made final. Ms. Solomon indicated that she would support the City Manager's recommendations with regard to the proposed revisions on the issue of complaints against the Police Chief. Ms. Ortiz stated that she viewed the chief as an administrative head of a City department more than as a public safety officer and felt that complaints against the chief should be handled accordingly. Mr. Clark worried that elements of investigations against the administrative heads might become hidden the farther they moved up the chain of command and maintained that the Police Auditor should not have ultimate authority over the Police Auditor and vice versa. He noted that he would find the proposed ordinance revisions acceptable so long as it was made expressly clear that the Police Auditor was ultimately accountable to the City Council rather than the City Manager. Mr. Pryor maintained that the chief was more of an administrator as opposed to a public safety officer and as such supported the recommendations of the City Manager with respect to allegations against the chief. He noted that the City Code should make it explicitly clear that any investigations of complaints against the chief would be performed in cooperation with the Police Auditor. Ms. Piercy noted that the PAORC had attempted to present their recommendations in a manner that would allow complaints against the chief to be handled effectively regardless of whether he was considered to be an administrator or a public safety officer. Mr. Klein responded that the PAORC's recommendations generally reflected a broad interpretation of the Police Chief's position with respect to any allegations brought against him or her. Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds noted that she had attended the PAORC meetings and that their conversations had focused on finding the most efficient manner for investigating complaints against police chiefs. Mr. Poling related from his personal experiences that while their duties often overlapped police chiefs primarily served as administrators rather than as public safety officers. He noted that he supported the City Manager's recommendation in that regard. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka noted that the original City ordinance contained no provisions for dealing with allegations against the Police Chief and also noted that the PAORC had attempted to draft broader language in the proposed ordinance revisions with respect to the kinds of allegations that might be brought against a police chief. Mr. Zelenka maintained that the City Manager's recommendations were very limiting and did not go far enough to provide an effective mechanism for initiating and investigating complaints against police chiefs. He further maintained that the PAORC recommendations would be more effective because they allowed the Police Auditor to classify and monitor complaints brought against the Chief of Police rather than the City Manager. Mr. Ruiz noted that while he found the preamble to the PAORC's proposed ordinance revisions acceptable, he would not be in favor of any ordinance revisions that would make the City Manager ultimately accountable to the Police Auditor. He felt it would be important for effective police oversight to maintain the City Manager's authority to initiate and maintain investigations against any members of the Police Department. Police Chief Pete Kerns noted from his work as a member of the PAORC that the proposed ordinance revisions would expand the Police Auditor's role to monitor not only the Police Chief but the City Manager as well. He noted that such revisions would expand the authority of the Police Auditor beyond what was intended for effective civilian oversight of the police process. Mr. Brown noted he was in favor of the PAORC's recommendations with respect to Section 2.454 and felt that they corresponded well with the goals of the Police Auditor’s office. He appreciated that the PAORC’s recommendations allowed the Police Auditor to actively monitor investigations. Mr. Pryor hoped that whatever recommendations the council decided to adopt, they might eventually reshape the ordinance in a manner that could better accommodate both the administrative and law enforcement aspects of the Police Chief’s position with respect to any oversight procedures. He maintained that there seemed to be strengths and deficiencies in both the City Manager’s and the PAORC’s recommendations and suggested that more time might need to be devoted to discussions on the matter. Ms. Piercy agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments. Ms. Ortiz believed that the Police Auditor should not have the authority to begin investigations on allegations against the Chief of Police and that such authority should reside with the City Manager. Mr. Zelenka felt that language clarifying the nature of the Police Chief’s administrative duties in relations to any allegations brought against him should have been included in the preamble to Section 2.454(5) of the PAORC’s recommendations. He agreed that more time might be needed to discuss the matter and make more careful revisions to the section. Ms. Taylor stated that she preferred the PAORC’s recommendations regarding the ordinance. Mr. Clark maintained that it would be important for the ordinance and any other City policies related to police oversight to have a clean and explicit separation of the authorities of the City Manager, the Police Chief and the Police Auditor. Ms. Piercy noted that one of the primary challenges of the council with respect to its discussions on police oversight was that they had limitations on what they were able to say regarding personnel issues. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Poling, responding to earlier comments made by Mr. Zelenka, expressed that the language used in the City Manager’s recommendation would preclude any abuses of authority with respect to allegations of misconduct brought against the Police Chief. Ms. Piercy confirmed that the council members needed more time to discuss the PAORC’s ordinance recommendations regarding allegations against the Chief of Police. Ms. Medary described the PAORC’s recommendations regarding the concurrency issues and complaint processing policies described in Section2.456 for the benefit of the council. Mr. Klein responding to a request from Ms. Piercy commented that the Police Auditor currently had the exclusive authority to route and classify complaints but that the Police Chief also had the authority to re- classify complaints. He noted that the PAORC’s recommendations would shift the authority to re-classify complaints from the chief to the Police Auditor. Mr. Clark felt that it was important to not hamper the work of the auditor with respect to their authority to classify or re-classify complaints. He hoped that the PAORC members could provide more detailed information with regard to their recommendations regarding the matter. PAORC Chair Tim Laue noted that one of the issues that had originally brought the matter of police oversight to the attention of the Police Commission was that members of the public were dissatisfied that complaints brought against the EPD were classified as inquiries rather than as official complaints. He further noted that the PAORC had ultimately decided that the classification authority for complaints should reside with the Police Auditor’s office while the adjudication and investigation authorities should reside with the EPD and the Police Chief. Mr. Poling believed that the Police Auditor should have the authority to re-classify complaints if such actions were warranted but further noted that such authorities might not need to be exclusive to the auditor. Police Chief Pete Kerns noted that he did not support removing the chief’s authority to re-classify complaints and noted that such authorities allowed the chief and EPD to handle and investigate complaints in an efficient and effective manner. Ms. Reynolds believed that the conflicting authorities with respect to classification of complaints made it impossible for the Police Auditor’s office to hire outside investigators and therefore hampered the auditor’s ability to conduct thorough investigations. She hoped that the police unions and the EPD would recognize the necessity for the Police Auditor to have the authority to re-classify complaints. Mr. Poling recognized that there had recently been a great deal of negative publicity surrounding the council’s work on police oversight matters and hoped that the public would recognize that the council’s diligence and support for effective police oversight in general and the Police Auditor’s office in particular had not waned. Ms. Ortiz noted that she and other council members would need more time to consider and discuss several of the police oversight issues referenced in the PAORC ordinance revision recommendations. Ms. Piercy responded that they would hold further discussions surrounding the ordinance revisions at their next meeting. Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:29 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 7 Work Session Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 27, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. Mr. Zelenka called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:00 p.m. and noted that Mayor Kitty Piercy and City Manager Jon Ruiz were in Portland attending the high speed rail symposium. WORK SESSION – Local Economic Development Plan – Part 2 A. Planning and Development Executive Director Susan Muir presented the second half of the Economic Development presentation as a follow-up to the previous work session discussion on April 13, 2009. Ms. Muir noted that the topics covered in the presentation had been drafted in response to the council’s comments made during the April 13, 2009, work session, and were focused on maximizing economic opportunities with a minimum of adverse impact on the livability of the City. Planning and Development Loan Analyst Amanda Nobel noted the three previous discussion items from previous work sessions which had already been acted on by the council: ? Increase funds available for rehabilitation of private and non-profit affordable rental housing ? Provide enhanced supportive services for homelessness and housing assistance ? Increase Business Development Fund (BDF) capacity by directing some federal stimulus funds into BDF; foreclosure counseling Ms. Nobel noted that the three above-referenced items had provided approximately $1.2 million to support economic investment and needed community services. Ms. Nobel noted that the current discussion would focus on the following proposals for City action to support economic developments: the sale of surplus real estate for identified development projects, limited land use code amendments and Urban Renewal Plan (URP) amendment. Ms. Nobel proceeded to describe each of the three proposals and their corresponding next steps in greater detail for the benefit of the council. Ms. Nobel, speaking with respect to the limited land use code amendments proposal, noted that current economic conditions made it very difficult for projects to proceed as originally planned and further noted that the amendments would provide a certain amount of flexibility with regard to timing and submittal requirements thereby encouraging increased development. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Nobel, speaking with regard to the urban renewal plan amendment proposal, demonstrated several examples of potential projects. She further noted that the spending cap in the urban renewal plan would need to be expanded to provide the capacity to support those projects. Ms. Nobel demonstrated a draft timeline regarding the urban renewal plan amendment proposal for the benefit of the council. Ms. Nobel noted the City Manager's recommendation for the benefit of the council. Ms. Nobel and Planning and Development Senior Management Analyst Denny Braud, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the City's surplus property at 901 Franklin Avenue had been acquired by the City after it had been condemned and the original owner had missed their opportunity to repurchase it. Mr. Braud further commented that the property had been condemned several years ago as part of the right-of-way of the western entrance to the Riverfront Research Park. Ms. Taylor felt that the original owner of the 901 Franklin Avenue property should have the "first shot" at developing it. Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the public involvement plan surrounding the limited land use code amendments proposal would be reviewed by the City's planning commission in order to ensure that the public was sufficiently informed through the use of open houses, electronic media communications and various stakeholder group meetings. Ms. Muir further confirmed that the council would make the final decision regarding the proposal. Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the University of Oregon was in the process of conducting a study regarding the downtown property that was occupied by Opus Six and that the university's study would be completed within the next 60 days. Ms. Laurence, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding the Park Blocks Master Plan included under the urban renewal plan amendment proposal, noted that the City had been working for several years with the Saturday Market and the Farmers Market to ensure that their needs were sufficiently met. She further noted that the Parks Blocks Master Plan's purpose was to ensure that both markets would have the opportunity to continue and thrive. Ms. Muir, responding to a comment from Ms. Taylor, suggested that the projects listed under the urban renewal plan amendment proposal might be feasible without the debt limit increase under the proposal, but that the amendment was designed as a tool to help facilitate those projects. Ms. Taylor expressed that she would not vote to increase the debt limit as described in the urban renewal plan amendment proposal. Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, commented that discussions surrounding the disposition of surplus property funds would happen concurrently with future work sessions regarding the matter. Ms. Medary, responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Clark, noted that the staff recommendations outlined in the next steps for the surplus property proposal would include a review of most if not all of the surplus property currently owned by the City. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Braud, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that the amounts for the expansion described under the urban renewal plan amendment proposal had not yet been finalized and further noted that the total increase to the spending limits would be subject to council approval. Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that any expansions to the urban renewal plan amendment as described under the proposal would not, ultimately, need to go before the voters. Ms. Ortiz asked for further details regarding the potential Veterans’ Affairs (VA) hospital in the downtown area. Ms. Muir responded that the VA would most likely release an RFP for the project to proceed. Ms. Ortiz recognized that one of the main challenges in the implementation of the downtown VA hospital project was the cost associated with PeaceHealth’s move from their current medical office building and hoped that the City of Eugene might find a way to support the VA's efforts. Ms. Muir noted that the site for the potential VA hospital was outside the current urban renewal district boundary and the proposal for the urban renewal plan amendment provided for a discussion of expansion of the boundary to accommodate the VA hospital. Planning & Development Principal Planner Steven Nystrom, responding to a question from Mr. Brown regarding the land use code amendments proposal, noted that while an exhaustive study of stalled projects had not been conducted there were approximately 100 projects pending completion with 60 of those within one year of expiring. He noted that any projects whose permits expired would incur huge costs to both the developers and the City as the projects would basically need to start over from the beginning. Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge, responding to a question from Mr. Brown regarding the division of tax impact on overlapping tax jurisdictions as they pertained to the bonded debt division School District 4J, explained how urban renewal influenced the ability to pay down bonded debt. She noted that allowing urban renewal to expire would not allow bonded debts to be paid off sooner, but would only affect the amount of taxes paid by the residents of Eugene. Planning and Development Grants Manager Stephanie Jennings, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the homelessness/housing assistance and business development funding assistance that had been acted on by the council on May 11 and May 26, respectively, had been funded with federal ARRA stimulus funding assistance, while the funding for the housing rehabilitation acted on by the council on April 27 had come from the regular federal CDBG funding allocation. Mr. Zelenka asked for clarification on how the proposal for the sale of surplus City property would relate to a previous budget committee motion. Ms. Medary responded that the proposal being discussed had originated before the budget committee's discussions and subsequent motion regarding the matter and that the disposition from any sale of surplus property would be discussed in much greater detail in subsequent council meetings. Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, commented that the economic development expected to be prompted by the sale of surplus property could come in a variety of ways including the jobs created and the value of services provided by the development of the property. Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the limited land use code amendments called primarily for extensions of time on development permits as well as other options that might be taken before the public at a later time. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the proposed increases to the boundary and debt limits of the urban renewal district represented substantial amendments to current policies and would not require a public vote. Mr. Zelenka hoped that any expansions to the urban renewal district would be for specific projects with specific dollar amounts attached to each one. Ms. Muir responded that further staff research and recommendations taken under the next steps directed by council would include much more specific information in that regard. Mr. Pryor hoped that the council’s discussions regarding the economic development plan would include a discussion of the appropriate role of local government with respect to private sector development in the community. He noted that he would be willing to talk about urban renewal and continued economic investment in downtown development so long as the projects came with specific details regarding their costs and construction plans. Ms. Medary, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, clarified the nature of the limited land use code amendment proposal and noted that it would not be used to put specific projects on hold, but to allow those projects whose permits were close to expiring more time to complete their development or construction. Mr. Nystrom further noted that the code amendments would apply primarily to private development investments rather than City infrastructure projects. Mr. Nystrom commented that the limited land use code amendment proposal was essentially designed to keep private development projects alive until a time when they were more economically viable. Mr. Poling supported the proposal to sell off the City’s surplus property. Mr. Poling felt that any expansions to the urban renewal district should be relatively narrow in focus and directed toward specific projects such as the VA hospital. Ms. Cutsogeorge and Mr. Braud responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, noted that not all surplus properties for sale would be subject to an RFP and that, while the RFP process was sometimes laborious, the council could choose to direct staff to proceed with the sale of surplus properties through more direct means. Mr. Braud described the basic functions of the RFP process for Ms. Solomon and the council’s benefit. Ms. Solomon noted that her support of urban renewal strategies had waned in recent years and further noted that she would only support expansion of the urban renewal district boundary if it could correspon- dingly be narrowed on the north end to allow for south end expansion and contingent upon the implementa- tion of the VA hospital project. Mr. Brown advocated for the dissolution of the urban renewal district as a means toward stimulating downtown development and maintained that other members of the community, and other communities around the country, shared his position. He urged the council members to google Multnomah County Chair Ted Wheeler to learn more regarding his views on urban renewal districts as they applied to the Portland Metro area. Ms. Taylor reiterated her opposition to urban renewal strategies as well as any corresponding expansions of the urban renewal district and maintained that they represented a "stealth slush fund" for private sector interests. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Clark hoped that any sale of surplus property would move swiftly and unencumbered in order to maximize the cost-effectiveness of any such sale. He maintained that he had never been a “big fan of urban renewal” and agreed with earlier comments that any expansions should be attached to very specific projects that were easily understandable by the public. Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that there remained approximately half a million dollars before the current urban renewal debt limit would be reached. Mr. Zelenka requested a list of all tools beyond urban renewal tax increment financing that were available to the City for projects such as had been described in the earlier presentation as well as a more specific accounting of the funds received through urban renewal strategies. Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that the information Mr. Zelenka had requested would be included in the report on the urban renewal plan that was required by state statute to be conducted as the plan progressed. Mr. Zelenka noted that detailed accounting figures had not been included in the report on the previous urban renewal plan. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the urban renewal district might be expanded in order to include the current Eugene City Hall facility and adjacent properties since the City was expected to move into a new facility sometime in the near future. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pryor’s earlier comment and maintained that the urban renewal district represented an opportunity for members of the public and private sector business interests to invest in downtown Eugene. She asked the council members how they expected to fund City services and programs without revenue-generating strategies such as the urban renewal district, enterprise zones or the garbage hauler surcharge fee. She reiterated that the City’s urban renewal process did not take money directly away from School District 4J as the school district was funded through state channels. She believed that the urban renewal district stimulated business growth that would directly result in the creation of downtown jobs for the community. Mr. Brown stated that an accounting of the tax divisions related to urban renewal had been provided to the council by staff. Mr. Brown was skeptical that the continued use of urban renewal districts would positively benefit downtown development and quoted documentation from economists at Iowa State University to support his opinion. He urged the staff and other council members to offer documentation or statistics refuting his position. He offered to compile a complete accounting of the costs and benefits of the urban renewal district in Eugene throughout its 51 year history. Ms. Solomon responded to Ms. Ortiz’s previous comment and noted that her own support of the urban renewal district had waned because the two most notable recent examples of urban renewal development, the Eugene Public Library and the Hult Center for the Performing Arts, did not generate any tax revenue for the City. She maintained that urban renewal strategies had not worked to facilitate the development of private sector businesses and investments in the downtown area. Mr. Zelenka reminded the council that local taxation policies related to urban renewal were essentially irrelevant with respect to School District 4J since school funding processes had been removed from local jurisdictions to be funded primarily at the state level. Mr. Pryor noted that he was not wedded to any funding strategy that did not work effectively for the City, but noted that any effective partner strategy for the City with respect to downtown development would need to come with some sort of financial benefit to all partners involved. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff to pursue the next steps, as outlined, to implement the “sale of surplus City real estate for identified devel- opment projects.” The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to initiate code amendments to consid- er extensions, submittal requirements, and processing timelines related to land use applications. Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, confirmed that the motion directed staff only to research the code amendments and that no formal action would be taken in that regard without council approval. Ms. Taylor offered a friendly amendment to the previously stated motion to include a sunset provision whereby any amendments to the limited land use code would have a two-year time limit. Ms. Muir reminded Ms. Taylor that the motion currently on the table was to direct staff to return with further information regarding the limited land use code amendments. Ms. Taylor subsequently withdrew her friendly amendment. Mr. Zelenka called for a vote on Mr. Clark’s previously stated motion. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff to pursue next steps, as outlined, to implement “Urban Renewal Plan amendment.” Mr. Poling noted that the discussions surrounding the urban renewal plan during the work session did not constitute any formal changes to the plan. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Poling’s assessment. Mr. Zelenka noted that he supported certain urban renewal projects described in the earlier presentation such as the Farmers’ Market and the downtown arts and cultural center. He reiterated his previous request to have a list of all development tools beyond urban renewal tax increment financing that were available to the City and felt that such a list might help the City’s efforts to research and consider more effective means of encouraging responsible downtown development. Ms. Taylor worried that using the word “pursue” in the previously stated motion might allow staff to proceed with amendments to the urban renewal plan without prior council approval. Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a comment from Ms. Taylor, noted that any remaining monies from the urban renewal tax proceeds would be returned to the taxing districts once the district expired. Ms. Taylor reiterated her opposition to both the urban renewal district and the motion that was currently under discussion. Mr. Clark appreciated the council’s thoughtful discussion regarding the manner in which the City would seek to encourage local economic development and hoped that future discussions would address how the City might help remove any barriers regarding the same. Mr. Brown reiterated his opposition to the urban renewal district. Mr. Zelenka called for a vote on Mr. Clark’s previously stated motion. The mo- tion passed 6:2 (Mr. Brown and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition.) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Zelenka adjourned the work session meeting at 1:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 7 Work Session